Site Commissioning White Paper U.S

SITE COMMISSIONING WHITE PAPER U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ARCHITECT

JULY 2017

SITE COMMISSIONING WHITE PAPER

Produced by GSA Public Buildings Service, Office of the Chief Architect Prepared by Andropogon Associates, Ltd. July 2017

Front cover image credit: Nic Lehoux

LETTER FROM THE PROJECT SPONSOR

The infrastructure we build, and the combination of economic, environmental and cultural services that infrastructure provides, is ‘evolutionary’ by nature.

Therefore perhaps ‘evolutionary infrastructure’ is a more apt name to capture both our standard green infrastructure, that is often passive and relatively isolated, and the cyborg-like (natural and mechanical) site systems that are deeply intertwined with the performance characteristics of the high-performance architectural facilities we construct. Evolutionary infrastructure incorporates living organisms and man-made features, processes, and ideas that will, out of necessity, increasingly become the common design patterns and movements of our world.

Many entities across the globe are facing complex challenges; and a near universal need exists to achieve more with less, pursue greater return on investment, and pursue cross benefits wherever possible. Yet to date the field performance characteristics of the landscapes we build are seldom understood and the evolutionary infrastructure we construct has relied largely on predicative assumptions--- despite knowing that the field behavior of living landscape systems is deceptively complex, quite variable, and subject to maintenance regimes that are often less than ideal. And we must be reminded that in the world of living infrastructure such as this, “maintenance” does not equate to the simple idea of “maintaining performance,” as it does with standard mechanical systems. Instead maintenance here, the system’s care and feeding, is often the force multiplier required to minimally achieve, or occasionally exceed, the intended performance targets.

While historically the concept of Ecosystem Services provided the conceptual framework for the idea of developing green infrastructure, moving forward leveraging a well-established concept within the building industry, a concept known as Commissioning, may prove useful if we are to operationalize this thinking to an ever broader audience, reduce costs, increase benefits, deepen the interactions between dynamic systems, and elevate our collective ability to place greater primacy in those systems. This may well enable the paradigm to truly shift from “green” infrastructure as a back-up, or as a method for dealing with overages or “problems,” to evolutionary infrastructure as the prime method for conceptualizing “opportunities.” Commissioning site work, and the knowledge that process may bring, could enable us to design and manage with much greater precision, and move away from a future of relying on ever greater levels of force.

Please join me in reviewing the following paper which examines both the purpose of applying a measurement and verification framework in the context of constructing high-performing site work, and how that may be done.

Sincerely,

Christian Gabriel, RLA, ASLA National Design Director for Landscape Architecture U.S. General Services Administration

Image credit: Andropogon Associates iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Capital budgets become less predictable and secure, thereby enhancing the urgency for durable Why is site commissioning necessary? sites that provide a return on investment and Achieving environmental, social, and financial reduce the need for premature redevelopment. resilience in the built environment requires a land development paradigm shift. Currently, conventional Site commissioning is an emerging practice, whereas development practice presupposes that built sites an established, global industry exists for verifying function as intended–from managing stormwater to the performance of buildings. GSA launched its first increasing employee retention–rather than testing building commissioning program in 1995, and in and proving that performance goals are met. This 2006 expanded the effort’s scope by adopting Total lack of verification within the built environment Building Commissioning for all new construction can perpetuate ineffective and inefficient design, and major renovations. According to the largest construction, and management practices. How can meta-analysis of published building commissioning data, a facility’s cost savings rise with increasingly property owners gain assurance that their properties 1 are functioning properly? How can they protect their comprehensive commissioning. Expanding GSA’s investment in land development for the long term? Site current commissioning program to include sites could commissioning offers a solution. therefore maximize the agency’s capital investments, protect this investment through verification, and further Site commissioning is a systematic process of enhance the agency’s standard of national design verifying that systems within the built environment, excellence. beyond a building’s skin, perform in accordance with design intent and the property owner’s operational What is the value? needs. Each site’s unique performance benchmarks Implementing an agency-wide site commissioning are established during a facility’s pre-development process can help GSA protect its capital and planning phase, and then targeted during design, operational investments by providing quality control, executed during construction, and verified with risk management, and assurance that sites are performance testing during site management. As delivered to achieve each facility’s unique performance one of the world’s largest and most diversified goals. Studies suggest that commissioning can public real estate organizations, the U.S. General yield significant cost avoidance during design and Services Administration (GSA) must leverage site construction (by detecting and resolving problems 2,3 commissioning to assure that the agency’s long-term early in the project delivery process ); during project turn-over (by reducing liability disputes45); during investment in its extensive properties is protected 6 7 using proven development and management practices. occupancy (through energy and non-energy savings); and under management (through reduced trouble This approach becomes increasingly critical for GSA 8 as: shooting and increased operational efficiency ). GSA owns and leases nearly 150,000 acres within 11 GSA regions, and in 2017, budgeted $5 million for site The agency continues to invest in long-lasting facilities 9 through a build-to-own model, in which ineffective and management for the National Capital Region alone. inefficient implementation can have significant cost Applying site commissioning’s potential savings across implications during a facility’s lifetime; just a fraction of this portfolio equates to lower facility • Facility owners demand that each built system life-cycle costs and direct savings for taxpayers. delivers multiple benefits (e.g. a vegetated roof that manages stormwater, provides desirable Site commissioning is equally important in its ability views, and reduces the frequency of roof to protect GSA’s human capital investment, which is replacement); typically an employer’s most valuable resource and • Facilities increasingly rely upon integrated site- greatest expenditure. The U.S. Department of Labor building systems that must function properly estimates that the average public sector absentee rate is 4%, or more than 83 hours per year, valued at to meet sustainability requirements and to 10 utilize resources efficiently (e.g. air conditioning a $2,502 average loss per employee in 2010 dollars. condensate harvesting and re-use for irrigation); 1 Mills (2011) • Public properties are expected to provide vital 2 Dorgan, et al. (2002) ecosystem services (e.g. flood control) to help 3 Altweis (2002) 4 Nelson (2008) GSA steward tax dollars responsibly while 5 Alonso (2016) adapting to climate change, mitigating risk 6 Mills (2011) management costs associated with extreme 7 Mills, et al. (2004) 8 Ellis & Reilly (2015) weather events, and protecting public health, 9 Alonso (2017) safety, and welfare; and 10 U.S. Department of Labor (2010) iv • Capital budgets become less predictable and secure, thereby enhancing the urgency for durable sites that provide a return on investment and reduce the need for premature redevelopment.

Site commissioning is an emerging practice, whereas an established, global industry exists for verifying the performance of buildings. GSA launched its first building commissioning program in 1995, and in 2006 expanded the effort’s scope by adopting Total Building Commissioning for all new construction and major renovations. According to the largest meta-analysis of published building commissioning data, a facility’s cost savings rise with increasingly comprehensive commissioning.1 Expanding GSA’s current commissioning program to include sites could therefore maximize the agency’s capital investments, protect this investment through verification, and further enhance the agency’s standard of national design excellence.

What is the value? Implementing an agency-wide site commissioning process can help GSA protect its capital and operational investments by providing quality control, risk management, and assurance that sites are delivered to achieve each facility’s unique performance goals. Studies suggest that commissioning can yield significant cost avoidance during design and construction (by detecting and resolving problems early in the project delivery process2,3); during project turn-over (by reducing liability disputes45); during occupancy (through energy6 and non-energy7 savings); and under management (through reduced trouble shooting and increased operational efficiency8). GSA owns and leases nearly 150,000 acres within 11 GSA regions, and in 2017, budgeted $5 million for site management for the National Capital Region alone.9 Applying site commissioning’s potential savings across just a fraction of this portfolio equates to lower facility life-cycle costs and direct savings for taxpayers.

Site commissioning is equally important in its ability to protect GSA’s human capital investment, which is typically an employer’s most valuable resource and greatest expenditure. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that the average public sector absentee rate is 4%, or more than 83 hours per year, valued at a $2,502 average loss per employee in 2010 dollars.10

1 Mills (2011) 2 Dorgan, et al. (2002) 3 Altweis (2002) 4 Nelson (2008) 5 Alonso (2016) 6 Mills (2011) 7 Mills, et al. (2004) 8 Ellis & Reilly (2015) 9 Alonso (2017) 10 U.S. Department of Labor (2010) Above: Nine financial benefits of commissioning v For a facility with 1,000 employees, this rate equates during the following project delivery phases: 1) to an annual loss of $2.5 million. Studies suggest that Planning / pre-design - by engaging the landscape the quality of the work environment, and specifically architect and commissioning agent rather than waiting views of nature and access to fresh air, notably until the design phase, to maximize team integration decreases absenteeism while increasing employee and performance goal refinement; 2) Design - through efficiency and retention by directly benefiting physical increased landscape architect, commissioning agent, health and well-being.1 Site commissioning offers and owner scope; and 3) Construction - by investing in a process for shepherding and verifying this critical higher-quality materials and two years of intensive site link between goal setting, site design (i.e. spatial management and monitoring that will vary with project organization, site program, aesthetic quality), and a scope, project complexity, and management personnel facility’s triple bottom line performance. ability. Long-term operations will incur the cost of continual monitoring and periodic commissioning, but Site commissioning would strengthen GSA’s role these expenditures are likely to be cost-neutral due to as a national leader in sustainability, proving its increased operating efficiencies and the reduced need dedication to excellence beyond the agency’s existing for system remediation and replacement. Furthermore, commitments to Total Building Commissioning, costs are likely to decrease over time as established LEED-certification, and SITES-certification. GSA’s sites mature and as GSA builds and applies its scale affords the agency the unique ability to create knowledge base through an agency-wide, adaptive demand in the marketplace for site performance feedback loop. verification, professional training and certification, and increased accountability. As a result, the application Overcoming the current lack of professional expertise of site commissioning across GSA’s wide-ranging related to site commissioning, monitoring, and portfolio will advance the necessary land development adaptive management, both within GSA and the paradigm shift on a national level. broader design industry, is essential for success. The well-established building commissioning industry What are the hurdles? will need to supplement its expertise by hiring Realizing the benefits of site commissioning will knowledgeable subject matter sub-consultants, require up-front investment. At the agency level, specific to each project’s needs, in order to deliver GSA will need to designate site commissioning holistic commissioning of buildings and sites. Using personnel (including an administrative lead and each facility’s request-for-proposal process to solicit regional liaisons), adopt digital tools, and develop these sub-consultants, as well as qualified site a communications strategy to ensure successful management personnel, will prove essential to meeting roll-out and management. At the facility level, site site performance goals long-term. commissioning is likely to require additional costs Lastly, sites contain biotic components (e.g. soil 1 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC (2012)

HISTORY OF GSA’S INVESTMENT PROTECTION microbes, plants) that respond to management practices, management phases of a project. An accessible, agency- weather events, and climatic fluctuations, while also wide adaptive feedback loop would then allow GSA to changing over time with maturation. Relying upon these improve its practices over time and cultivate cumulative, dynamic, living systems to provide facilities with critical institutional knowledge. services can be challenging as performance can vary from month-to-month, from season-to-season, and from What does this document offer? young to mature growth. A successful site commissioning This white paper assesses the feasibility, and then details process must therefore anticipate performance trajectories a strategy, for GSA to develop and implement an agency- and address under-performance before liability transfers at wide site commissioning process for all new construction key points during a facility’s life-cycle. and major redevelopment. As one of the first publications to discuss the emerging practice of site commissioning, How would the process be implemented? this white paper encapsulates a literature review of related A successful, agency-wide site commissioning process subject matter (including building commissioning, site must dovetail with GSA’s existing Total Building monitoring, and sustainability rating systems) and then Commissioning program, to build upon that which has envisions site commissioning’s opportunities, constraints, already been vetted, implemented, and accepted. The costs, benefits, and relationship to industry-wide trends. process must also accommodate existing policies, executive orders, and GSA’s project procurement and To supplement this analysis, this publication incorporates delivery processes, while complementing the Sustainable original research by the white paper’s research team, SITES Initiative (SITES), which GSA adopted in 2016. which solicited input from 89 industry experts, organized Site commissioning would be implemented at four nested into seven subject matter-specific working groups. scales–project, facility type, region, and agency–supported Through participation in surveys and group interviews, by a graduated roll-out strategy. these public sector, private sector, and academic experts provided critical input related to performance goals, The process itself would ensure that each facility’s unique monitoring methods, performance evaluation, and degree performance goals are established and then provide an of support. The survey and interview results revealed adaptable framework that informs performance metrics, statistically significant, cross-disciplinary support for GSA’s temporal engagement, and monitoring schedules adoption of a site commissioning process, thereby adding surrounding four core attributes (water, soil, vegetation, validity to the agency’s pursuit. In response, this white and materials) and three supporting attributes (human paper proposes an actionable process framework and health and well-being, habitat, and climate). Like Total implementation strategy that is informed by the industry Building Commissioning, site commissioning would be experts and a Commission Advisory Group, and tailored to integrated in pre-planning, design, construction, and meet GSA’s needs.

What does this document recommend?

Front-end investment in high-quality facility planning, design, and construction, to achieve long-lasting facilities with reduced, long-term operational and replacement expenditures, improved worker productivity, and lower risk for liability and insurance claims.

Adopt an inclusive project development process (in which owner, designer, contractor, site manager, and commissioning agent work collaboratively) beginning during the planning / pre-design phase, to establish owner’s triple bottom line benefits, craft performance goals, enhance team integration, and ensure buy-in.

Leverage ecosystem services by designing and managing site systems that further performance goals (e.g. habitat biodiversity and resilience), while recognizing that the performance of one system may affect the measurable performance of another.

Launch a 3-year pilot program, inclusive of diverse facility types and geographies, to test and fine-tune GSA’s site commissioning process.

Split site maintenance into two phases: “early-stage management“ to accommodate intensive care during plant establishment (years 0-2 after construction), followed by less intensive “long-term management.” Finance the former with the facility’s capital budget and the latter with the operational budget.

Anticipate performance trajectories to factor predictable changes in dynamic, living systems over time, particularly when integrated building / site systems drive a facility’s operational performance.\

Create an agency-wide information feedback loop that manages risk by improving GSA’s land development and management processes, given the agency’s build-to-own model.

Confirm true costs and benefits associated with site commissioning’s added development and operations costs, and the agency’s tangible and intangible benefits at the facility and regional scale.

Embrace a long-term outlook that accommodates fiscal fluctuation; climatic variability; programmatic flexibility, assessment, and adaption; and the time associated with creating an industry.

Image credit: D. Nystedt photographer, Andropogon Associates ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1| Introduction 3 Project background 5 Defining “site” 9 2| Current commissioning environment 11 Current commissioning gap 13 Site commissioning triple bottom line benefits 13 Ecosystem services 16 Industry-wide performance trends 17 GSA’s current building commissioning process 21 Applicability to sites 21 3| Making the case 23 Direct savings 25 Indirect savings 26 Commissioning costs 27 Case studies 29 Working group input 37 4| Process framework 39 Potential site commissioning metrics 41 Categorizing site “systems” 45 Integration into GSA’s current building commissioning process 47 Qualifications-based process for hiring commissioning professionals 52 5| Process implementation 53 Nested scales of implementation 55 Graduated roll-out strategy 56 Required resources 57 Partnerships and buy-in 58 Adaptive feedback loop 59 6| Next steps 61 Action items 63 Open questions 64 7| Appendices 65 A - White paper contributors 67 B - Industry expert input 71 C - SITES credits supported by site commissioning 80 D - Sample scope of services for site commissioning agents 81 E - Sample field observation forms 84 F - Additional resources 88 G - Glossary 89 H - References 91

Image credit: Andropogon Associates 2 3 1. INTRODUCTION

The Edith Green-Wendall Wyatt Federal Building, in Portland, OR, exemplifies how views of planting and access to site amenities can enhance the work environment. This LEED Platinum-certified renovation of a 1970s tower was commissioned through GSA’s Total Building Commissioning program.

Image credit: Nic Lehoux

4 PROJECT BACKGROUND as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)– gained popularity, largely due to life-cycle cost and The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) warranty benefits. The concept of commissioning is a proven leader in sustainability. The agency’s expanded in the late 1980s to include whole buildings, adoption of cutting edge sustainability rating systems and in 1995, GSA initiated its own commissioning and commitment to performance benchmarks has– program with the publication of its first Building through demonstrated success and economies of Commissioning Guide. Since this time, GSA’s interest scale–positively contributed to the current “green” in commissioning has shifted from cost and warranties movement within the design, manufacturing, and to the triple bottom line: people, planet, and profit. construction industries. This groundswell has largely centered around buildings. However, GSA’s The adoption of SITES, which establishes 2016 adoption of the Sustainable SITES Initiative performance measures to assess the long-term (SITES) will broaden the discussion of sustainability impacts of land development on both environmental to encompass land development. In recognition of and human health, supports GSA’s current GSA’s sustainability leadership role, the agency is triple bottom line approach to commissioning. A considering the development of a site commissioning comprehensive site commissioning process would process that could expand this sphere of influence to integrate the performance measures established in positively impact the site design, manufacturing, and SITES (for water, soil, vegetation, materials, human construction industries while advancing progressive health, and climate), along with habitat, with GSA’s landscape stewardship practices. land development processes, from a facility’s planning phase through long-term management. At it’s core, commissioning is a process in which performance goals are established and then measured As one of the world’s largest and most diversified and verified over time. The versatile practice has been public real estate organizations, site commissionin utilized for purposes ranging from the ancient Roman g offers GSA’s decision makers an effective and design of arches, to preparing naval ships for active efficient process for ensuring that the agency’s service, to trouble-shooting problems on oil rigs. In the extensive properties are performing as intended. The 1970s, commissioning of select building systems–such significance of these benefits is paramount in an era when sites must function as ecosystem services INTENT: TO EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING + IMPLEMENTING A SITE COMMISSIONING PROCESS FOR GSA’S NEW CONSTRUCTION + MAJOR REDEVELOPMENTS

workhorses; building and site systems are becoming addresses site elements that relate to ecological increasingly integrated; and capital budgets may services and other relevant factors (e.g. life safety, become less predictable and secure. Furthermore, cost effective maintenance, first cost, and life cycle site commissioning offers a valuable adaptive cost considerations). feedback loop approach in which the successes and • Develop a broad, site-focused list of shortcomings of GSA’s built projects can provide data commissioning elements that identify critical for shaping future developments and managing risk. features and define the utility, the present feasibility, the commissioning method, and the net This white paper examines the feasibility (see chapters triple bottom line benefit of commissioning these 2-3) and offers a strategy (see chapters 4-6) for GSA elements. to expand and develop its current, agency-wide Total • Identify strategies for “balancing” under-performing Building Commissioning program to include sites for site systems, or minimizing the chances of under- all new construction and major redevelopments. This performance. white paper’s primary objectives are to: • Identify a clear and concise “scope of services” for commissioning site elements, as well as an • Determine if site commissioning is feasible, cost opinion on what type of commissioning agent effective, and desirable for GSA projects. would be most able to provide these unique • Develop an expansive, actionable, and cost- services. effective model for site commissioning that

Image credit: James Steinkamp of James Steinkamp Photography IS SITE COMMISSIONING FEASIBLE, COST EFFECTIVE + DESIRABLE?

CAN SITE SYSTEMS BE “BALANCED” DURING POST-CONSTRUCTION IF UNDER-PERFORMING? CAN AN EXPANSIVE, ACTIONABLE, COST-EFFECTIVE MODEL FOR COMMISSIONING BE DEVELOPED?

WHICH COMMISSIONING AGENTS COULD PROVIDE THESE SERVICES?

WHICH BROAD SITE-FOCUSED COMMISSIONING ELEMENTS CAN BE IDENTIFIED? DEFINING “SITE” a 2017 report, more than 64,000 people provide landscape design services within the U.S., an industry 1 Sites are dynamic environments that encompass much valued at $5 billion per year. The landscape care and more than “dirt and plants.” This white paper defines maintenance services industry is even larger, with more than 1 million employees and annual revenues of site as the complete area within a design-construction 2 project’s defined boundaries, beyond the building $83 billion, according to another 2017 report. extents. This includes all outdoor areas that are natural and constructed, vegetated and non-vegetated, The visual and functional divisions between site on structure (i.e. vegetated roof) and off structure. The and buildings are becoming blurred within today’s term site is synonymous with landscape. progressive, sustainable design community. Visual integration of a site and the architecture within it is Sites are, in part, living systems, teeming with often achieved through topographic modification, microbial life and vegetation that respond to material continuity, and strategic geometry of management practices, weather events, and climatic site features (e.g. plaza, seat wall, planting bed). variation. Healthy sites provide ecosystem services Functional integration of site and architecture may (see Ecosystem Services, p. 16) and can be involve building shading with plant material, connected strategically designed, built, and managed to maximize hydrologic systems, and purposeful views of the site the delivery of these services, even within dense, from within a building. When site and building design is urban environments. Under the surface, constructed integrated, the performance of site-building systems– sites may support complex assemblies of native or such as a site irrigation system supplied by harvested engineered soils, geotextiles, stormwater storage roof runoff–may similarly become interdependent. materials, hydrologic conveyance infrastructure, irrigation components, reinforcement layers, structural Sites, or their sub-systems, may be considered high- footings, and utilities (e.g. electrical, telecom, gas). performance when meeting or exceeding baseline Above ground, sites may support roads, walkways, regulatory requirements, and also serving additional plazas, seating, walls, fencing, lighting, planting beds, design and operational functions such as mitigating rain gardens, bioswales, basins, and natural areas risk, adapting to environmental change, maximizing such as water bodies, wetlands, meadow, forest, ecosystem services, contributing to social benefits, or plains, and desert. providing a high cost-benefit.

The design and management of sites supports green 1 IBISWorld, NAICS 54132 (2017) jobs and contributes to the economy. According to 2 IBISWorld, NAICS 56173 (2017)

Opposite: Hydraulic movement of an integrated site-building system that depends upon the constructed site’s above-ground and sub-surface components to manage stormwater. 9 10 11 2. CURRENT COMMISSIONING ENVIRONMENT

The expansion and modernization of the 55-acre Mariposa Land Port, in Nagolas, AZ, demonstrates how commissioning can occur during the phased redevelopment of an active port. The LEED Gold- certified project relied upon building commissioning to meet the requirements of LEED 2.2 and achieve sustainability and security goals, without compromising safety.

Image credit: Bill Timmerman

12 CURRENT SITE COMMISSIONING’S COMMISSIONING GAP TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

GSA has applied a Total Building Commissioning BENEFITS process to all of its new construction and major renovation projects since 2006. The agency adopted The triple bottom line is an accounting framework the National Conference on Building Commissioning’s that assumes the true cost of doing business definition of Total Building Commissioning, which is can be accurately understood only when social, a “systematic process of assuring by verification and environmental, and economic performance is documentation, from the design phase to a minimum measured. This concept of people, planet, and of one year after construction, that all facility systems profit–or the “three Ps”–has been widely adopted perform interactively in accordance with the design by companies and organizations globally that aim to documentation and intent, and in accordance with the analyze their performance within a broader context owner’s operational needs, including preparation of by understanding their impact beyond financial operation personnel.”1 This definition recognizes the profit. It’s imperative that GSA understands that site integrated nature of building systems performance– commissioning can help the agency realize critical such as building envelope and automatic temperature triple bottom line benefits, by shepherding goal control–which together influence sustainability, development and verifying performance throughout workplace productivity, and security. When these a facility’s lifetime. Monetization of these benefits is building systems are installed, calibrated, and discussed later in this white paper (see Ecosystem monitored through a commissioning process, building Services Valuation, p. 26). owners tend to experience significant operations and People: Depending on a facility owner’s goals, site maintenance savings. commissioning can help achieve increased employee When systems are bounded within the building, their health and well-being, productivity, satisfaction, and evaluation is similarly contained. But how does the retention (from views of greenery and access to commissioning framework adapt to building systems fresh air); improved safety and security (by reviewing that are integrated with the site? Design, particularly and responding to incident reports); and educational in urban settings, is by necessity shifting toward more benefit (from working in a sustainably designed integrated site-building solutions, in which stormwater environment). runoff, building envelope performance, and even Planet: Site commissioning can verify environmental wastewater systems are addressed holistically, rather performance, thereby meeting a facility’s goals related than relying on separate solutions for building and site. to stormwater management, stewardship, wildlife Unlike relatively static building systems, however, the habitat provision, carbon sequestration, and energy site contains dynamic, vegetated, and soil systems conservation. that respond to climate, weather, and management. Profit: Site commissioning can help lower a facility’s Bridging the commissioning gap that surrounds life-cycle costs by protecting capital, operational, and dynamic, living site systems–by establishing human capital investment. Effective design, reduced performance standards, conducting monitoring, and construction errors, under-performance remediation calibrating the systems over time–presents a unique prior to turn-over, efficient site management, and opportunity that stands to significantly affect GSA’s supported links between facility design and employee triple bottom line. retention and productivity can result from the process’ ability to manage risk and enhance quality control.

Many of site commissioning’s triple bottom line benefits are interconnected. For example, views of a healthy landscape (planet) influence employee satisfaction and productivity (people), which in tern leads to less employee turnover and higher revenue (profit).2 Similarly, a wisely designed stormwater management strategy can lead to water use savings and reduced stormwater fees. Recognizing this complex web of inter-related attributes is paramount to recognizing site commissioning’s comprehensive benefits.

1 General Services Administration (2016) 2 Terrapin Bright Green LLC (2012) 13 SITE COMMISSIONING’S TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE BENEFITS

The triple bottom line is an accounting framework that assumes the true cost of doing business can be accurately understood only when social, environmental, and economic performance is measured. This concept of people, planet, and profit–or the “three Ps”–has been widely adopted by companies and organizations globally that aim to analyze their performance within a broader context by understanding their impact beyond financial profit. It’s imperative that GSA understands that site commissioning can help the agency realize critical triple bottom line benefits, by shepherding goal development and verifying performance throughout a facility’s lifetime. Monetization of these benefits is discussed later in this white paper (see Ecosystem Services Valuation, p. 26).

People: Depending on a facility owner’s goals, site commissioning can help achieve increased employee health and well-being, productivity, satisfaction, and retention (from views of greenery and access to fresh air); improved safety and security (by reviewing and responding to incident reports); and educational benefit (from working in a sustainably designed environment).

Planet: Site commissioning can verify environmental performance, thereby meeting a facility’s goals related to stormwater management, stewardship, wildlife habitat provision, carbon sequestration, and energy conservation.

Profit: Site commissioning can help lower a facility’s life-cycle costs by protecting capital, operational, and human capital investment. Effective design, reduced construction errors, under-performance remediation prior to turn-over, efficient site management, and supported links between facility design and employee retention and productivity can result from the process’ ability to manage risk and enhance quality control.

The quality of human life relies upon ecosystem services that are provided by the natural and built environment. As populations continue to increase and urbanize, these services—from pollination to water cleansing to access to nature for all citizens—become increasingly important, yet more complex to sustain. Recently, a global trend has emerged involving the quantification of ecosystem services, which encompass both environmental and social services, and using the resulting data to guide land development decisions. This quantification helps convey, as well as advocate for, the multifaceted value of high- performing site systems. Additionally, the public policy decision-making process is strengthened by evaluating the challenges and opportunities of different development scenarios and their potential to contribute to ecosystem services.

Defining “Ecosystem Services” Ecosystem services are generally categorized into four different groups: 1) Provisioning, which consists of goods delivered by ecosystems (e.g. food, water, wood, medicine); 2) Regulating, which captures ecosystem benefits (e.g. climate regulation, water purification, pollination, erosion control); 3) Cultural, which reflects the social benefits (e.g. tourism, recreation, spirituality); and 4) Supporting, which refers to ecological functions that sustain other services (e.g. biodiversity, habitat).1, 2 Ecosystem service computer models, such as UFORE, i-Tree, and C-BAT, help quantify various measurable, direct benefits of ecosystem services (such as carbon sequestration in

tons of CO2 per year) while also estimating economic values (such as avoided costs). These tools help provide a more holistic perspective of the cost-benefit of different land development and management.

Why evaluate? Assessing and quantifying ecosystem services is becoming common practice for large land owners across the world—from China to Latin America— and within the U.S. government, including the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Defense.3 These evaluations can be powerful decision making tools by helping to balance goals with a diverse group of stakeholder types, communicating the value of different landscape types and management regimens, and most importantly, helping land owners save money and support their unique institutional missions.

1 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) 2 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010) 3 Ma, et al. (2016)

15 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Applicability to GSA Determining which ecosystem services to evaluate for The quality of human life relies upon ecosystem any given site depends upon regional context, specific services that are provided by the natural and built community needs, and goals. For example, GSA’s environment. As populations continue to increase and needs for an urban courthouse in the rainy Pacific urbanize, these services—from pollination to water Northwest would differ from those of a port of entry cleansing to access to nature for all citizens—become in a southwest desert. Across all facilities, however, increasingly important, yet more complex to sustain. economic drivers (including cost avoidance and Recently, a global trend has emerged involving return on investment) offer the most convincing and the quantification of ecosystem services, which influential support for fostering ecosystem services. encompass both environmental and social services, These cost considerations within the built environment and using the resulting data to guide land development include: decisions. This quantification helps convey, as well as advocate for, the multifaceted value of high- • Decreased energy costs from cooling provided by performing site systems. Additionally, the public vegetation during hot weather policy decision-making process is strengthened by • Water purification by natural systems, compared evaluating the challenges and opportunities of different to energy-consuming mechanical or engineered development scenarios and their potential to contribute systems to ecosystem services. • Reduced healthcare costs resulting from improved employee health and well-being Defining “Ecosystem Services” • Reduced carbon tax payments through increased Ecosystem services are generally categorized into carbon sequestration four different groups: 1) Provisioning, which consists • Mitigation of emergency repair costs through of goods delivered by ecosystems (e.g. food, water, protection from flooding and landslides wood, medicine); 2) Regulating, which captures • Other risk avoidance and insurance claim ecosystem benefits (e.g. climate regulation, water reduction (for leased facilities) related to protection purification, pollination, erosion control); 3) Cultural, from extreme weather events which reflects the social benefits (e.g. tourism, • Cost savings through increased durability of built recreation, spirituality); and 4) Supporting, which refers systems, such as green roofs extending the life to ecological functions that sustain other services service of roofing material (e.g. biodiversity, habitat).1, 2 Ecosystem service • Reduced payment for goods that can be grown computer models, such as UFORE, i-Tree, and C-BAT, on site, such as edible food crops or site-milled help quantify various measurable, direct benefits of lumber ecosystem services (such as carbon sequestration in • Enhanced social benefits, such as recreation, property values, increased worker productivity, job tons of CO2 per year) while also estimating economic values (such as avoided costs). These tools help retention and aesthetics provide a more holistic perspective of the cost-benefit • Increased workplace value through increased of different land development and management. worker productivity and job retention by providing views and access to green space Why evaluate? • Increased property value from improved aesthetics Assessing and quantifying ecosystem services is • Reduction of costs related to economic becoming common practice for large land owners disservices, those ecosystem services that incur costs such as pests and disease, allergens, across the world—from China to Latin America— 4 and within the U.S. government, including the U.S. destruction of property, etc. Forest Service and Department of Defense.3 These evaluations can be powerful decision making tools These cost implications can inform a facility’s goals by helping to balance goals with a diverse group and gain verification through site commissioning. The of stakeholder types, communicating the value of result will be data-driven proof of financial savings different landscape types and management regimens, and increased protection of human health, safety, and most importantly, helping land owners save money and welfare throughout the nation’s natural and built and support their unique institutional missions. environment.

1 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) 2 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010) 3 Ma, et al. (2016) 4 Gómez-Baggerthun and Barton (2013)

Opposite (top): Ecosystem services and their influence on well-being; Opposite (bottom): Site commissioning’s interconnected triple bottom line benefits 16 International Performance Measurement + Verification Protocol (IPMVP) IPMVP is an internationally-recognized compilation of best practices for verifying energy and water efficiency and cost savings. The Efficiency Valuation Organization publishes the reference document to increase investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

GSA’s Total Building Commissioning GSA’s Total Building Commissioning process involves testing and verifying that all building systems perform in accordance with design intent and Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR), from design to at least one year post-occupancy. A third party commissioning authority is typically engaged by the owner.

LEED BD+C v4 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a sustainability rating system for buildings, used by designers and consultants, developed and administered by the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED BD+C v4 is a version launched in 2012 with an expanded focus on metering and monitoring to track energy and water use and environmental quality during design, construction, and operations.

Sustainable SITES Initiative (SITES) SITES is a point-based rating system used by designers, planners, and policy makers to develop sustainable landscapes. The SITES rating system is for land development projects with or without buildings to distinguish sustainable landscapes, measure their performance, and help quantify their value. It is administered by Green Business Certification Inc.

17 INDUSTRY-WIDE program’s point system, LEED certification largely relies upon the completion of forms that document PERFORMANCE TRENDS design decisions, such as material origin and anticipated stormwater performance. While this The American design, construction, and management process fosters responsible use of resources, healthy industries demonstrate increasing commitment living and work environments, reduced emissions, to the sustainability and performance of the built and lower operating costs, by 2010, several studies of environment. This green building sector growth is non-GSA, LEED-certified buildings found that “up to a both supported and driven by incentives, progressive quarter of the buildings performed operationally below regulation, and the adoption of an ever-increasing LEED energy codes and standards.”1 The 2012 launch number of sustainability rating systems. Many of these of LEED BC+D v4 Fundamental Commissioning rating systems have expanded in complexity over time, and Verification offered a solution to this under- and in recent years some have moved away from performance quandary, by requiring the participation relying upon design intent to evaluate sustainability of a commissioning agent from design through and performance, towards a new model in which 10-months post-occupancy. In 2013, a new LEED performance is tested and proven over time. BC+D v4 Enhanced Path 2: Enhanced Monitoring- Based Commissioning offered the first opportunity in For example, Leadership in Energy and Environmental LEED’s history for post-occupancy monitoring, and Design (LEED) is a rating system that, since its launch remediation of performance deficiencies, beyond the in 1998, has provided standardized methods for third- 10-month commissioning period. party verification of environmental performance in buildings. Sustained demand across market sectors GSA’s commitment to high-performance buildings has resulted in rating system diversification, which parallels these industry trends towards diversification, now supports five project types (e.g. interior design, neighborhood development, homes). To satisfy the 1 Richards (2012)

X = Always required; -- = Sometimes required 18 IN RECENT YEARS, SOME RATING SYSTEMS HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM RELYING UPON DESIGN INTENT TO EVALUATE SUSTAINABILITY + PERFORMANCE, TOWARDS A NEW MODEL IN WHICH PERFORMANCE IS TESTED + PROVEN OVER TIME

19 performance verification, and general strengthening of agent, phase engagement, required steps, owner’s over time. In 2016, this commitment expanded to project requirements, engagement cost, and frequency include site performance through GSA’s adoption additionally informs how a site commissioning of the Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings process could potentially work in tandem with these Service (PBS-P100), which require that all new previously-adopted programs, while filling certain construction and significantly renovated projects gaps. The table includes examples of gaps that may achieve a minimum silver rating1 through Sustainable be appropriately addressed by site commissioning, SITES Initiative (SITES): the most comprehensive such as owner training and inclusion of maintenance rating system for developing sustainable landscapes. requirements within the Owner’s Project Requirements SITES is a point-based system used by designers, (OPR). The gaps within existing programs can developers, and policy-makers “to align land serve as opportunities to build an even stronger site development and management with innovative commissioning process, one which maximizes long- sustainable design,”2 and like other recent systems, the term performance and reduces remediation costs. program requires post-occupancy monitoring. Comparing the GSA’s previously adopted programs The table on the previous pages and below lists also underscores the project delivery coordination Total Building Commissioning, the International that’s required to achieve multiple program Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol benchmarks on a single project, particularly given (IPMVP), LEED BD+C v4, and SITES in chronological the varied phases of engagement for each program. order based on each program’s adoption by GSA. As the green building industry continues to diversify Comparing the programs in this way highlights and become more rigorous, GSA’s PM Guide (a similarities and discrepancies, while revealing nuanced comparative, organizational framework for the shifts toward performance over time. This comparison agency’s many rating systems and performance benchmarks) will become increasingly useful. 1 General Services Administration (2016) 2 The Sustainable SITES Initiative (2017)

X = Always required; -- = Sometimes required 20 GSA’S CURRENT BUILDING emphasis on meeting performance expectations, as defined by the OPR, from concept development COMMISSIONING PROCESS to design documentation, and construction documentation. By the start of design documentation, To understand GSA’s current building commissioning the commissioning agent must be under contract process, it’s critical to first recognize the industry’s (which is usually held by the construction manager), four distinct commissioning types, which are largely after which the agent will work closely with the design defined by when the commissioning occurs relative team. Additionally, performance verification tests to a project’s lifetime. As shown in the chart on the and procedures will be incorporated into the contract following page, the first type, “commissioning,” is documents, and the commissioning plan will be applicable to new construction and major renovation updated. projects. By definition it occurs once, either during construction or at substantial completion, and the Construction: This phase begins with the review evaluation method generally involves verification of submittals to ensure that performance parameters and functional performance monitoring. The second are met. Next, the commissioning agent prepares type, “recomissioning,” involves periodic, functional construction checklists that are maintained by the performance monitoring and evaluation of a built construction manager. As construction progresses, project that was previously commissioned during functional performance testing and documentation construction or substantial completion. “Retro- of each commissioned system provides baseline commissioning” is a method of diagnostic and data that is critical to future recommissioning. functional performance monitoring, generally of an Qualified instructors then train GSA operations and older project, that occurs once to trouble-shoot a maintenance personnel in building system upkeep problem or periodically to establish a commissioning and adjustment. Before substantial completion, the program. The last type, “continuous commissioning,” team submits a Commissioning Record Document and relies upon regularly gathered or continuous feeds of Recommissioning Management Manual to the owner. data as part of an ongoing commissioning program for large, generally complex projects.1 Post-Construction: To maintain expected system performance throughout the building’s GSA requires building commissioning for all new lifetime, this phase allows for continued adjustment construction and major renovations planned for 2006 and optimization. Deferred and seasonal testing or later, with scheduled recommissioning every 3 – 5 occurs, and the commissioning agent submits a years (as defined by each project’s OPR).2 A limited Final Commissioning Report. Lastly, the GSA project retro-commissioning process is deployed for projects manager leads a final satisfaction review with the that received funding approval prior to 2005, in order customer agency at one-year post-occupancy, and to meet each project’s performance objectives.3 then the customer agency will recommission the This building commissioning process is intentionally facility. integrated with GSA’s project delivery procedures, from planning through post-construction. The following 4 is adapted from GSA’s Building Commissioning Guide: APPLICABILITY TO SITES Planning: GSA’s project manager is responsible for defining the commissioning scope, budget, and A successful site commissioning process would schedule within the project’s feasibility study. Key integrate into GSA’s well-established building to this is identifying the commissioning team, which commissioning program, rather than reinventing the typically includes GSA operations personnel, customer wheel. Key to this process would be introducing a agency representatives, GSA technical experts, the landscape architect along with the core design team design team (architect/engineer), construction team during planning, to help refine the OPR and develop (manager/contractors), and commissioning agent. The fully-integrated, site-building system solutions. This OPR are then identified and documented, thereby process would also involve broadening the OPR to providing critical performance benchmarks for the include benchmarks for site performance, such as design and commissioning team moving forward. water use. Since living systems are inherently more These decisions are captured within a preliminary dynamic then building systems, dedication to post- commissioning plan that is periodically revisited. occupancy monitoring would be critical in verifying that the owners performance expectations are maintained Design: Building systems are designed with an during the project’s lifetime. This white paper will explore the considerations surrounding an integrated 1 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (2016) site-building, or “Total Commissioning” process. 2 General Services Administration (2005) 3 General Services Administration (2005) 21 4 General Services Administration (2005) BUILDING COMMISSIONING TYPES

Image adapted from Energy.gov.1

HOW DOES SITE COMMISSIONING DOVETAIL INTO THIS PROCESS?

Image credit: GSA Building Commissioning Guide2

1 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (2016) 2 U.S. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Office of the Chief Architect (2005) 22 23 3. MAKING THE CASE

GSA’s 32-acre U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters at Saint Elizabeths West Campus, in Washington D.C., demonstrates a high-performance approach to campus design that integrates building and site systems. This LEED Gold-certified redevelopment, completed in 2013, underwent a total building commissioning process.

Image credit: Anice Hoachlander / Hoachlander Davis Photography

24 DIRECT SAVINGS Performance, p. 26).

Building commissioning’s cost-benefit analysis is During design and construction, commissioning relatively well studied by researchers, who largely can be an effective tool in detecting and resolving agree that the process can pay for itself when applied problems, thereby avoiding unnecessary capital to new construction.1 The same level of rigor, however, expenditures. One study found that commissioning has not yet been applied to site commissioning. In the resulted in cost savings of $319,000, $400,000, absence of peer-reviewed literature on the subject, $425,000, and $500,000 in four newly-constructed, relevant information from building commissioning and high-tech buildings by eliminating change orders, ecosystem services valuation studies can inform a eliminating requests for information, properly selecting more thorough understanding of site commissioning’s systems and system components, reducing contractor callbacks, and accelerating substantial completion anticipated savings, costs, and payback. A general 6 discussion of social, environmental, and financial dates. Another research effort that analyzed six benefits appears earlier in this white paper (see Site buildings similarly found that commissioning reduced change orders by 87% and contractor callbacks by Commissioning’s Triple Bottom Line Benefits, p. 13), 7 whereas this section focuses specifically on monetized 90%. In fact, the largest meta-analysis of published findings from the literature. building commissioning data, from 2011, suggests that the cost of commissioning new construction should be recovered through cost savings during project delivery Facility Life-Cycle Cost Savings 8 Commissioning can protect capital and operational alone. investments by providing quality control, risk management, and evidence-based assurance that At the end of a facility’s construction phase, if the facilities are delivered and managed to achieve general contractor turns over a fully-functional intended performance goals. GSA owns and leases facility to its owner, liability disputes associated with nearly 150,000 acres, which support approximately inoperable systems and under-performance, as well 9,600 buildings2 and more than 25-acres of vegetated as the cost of remediation, can be minimized. One roofs3 nationwide. Multiplying the following savings– commissioning expert provided expert testimony from planning through management–across just a stating that claims in twelve buildings–totaling $60 million–could have been avoided if commissioning fraction of this portfolio equates to significant cost 9 avoidance for GSA, and direct savings for tax payers. was properly implemented. In 2016, a GSA Regional Horticulturist Team Lead corroborated During a facility’s planning phase, commissioning this notion, for sites, when reporting that a lack can help reduce a facility’s life-cycle costs by of quality control surrounding site transfer from supporting the development of goals that target general contractor to owner, “has contributed to the material durability and system longevity. These turnover of failed systems in the form of inoperable goals can prove key in validating higher upfront cisterns, faulty irrigation systems and failed green roofs... [resulting in] added costs for GSA due to investment in durable materials and systems, for 10 the benefit of decreasing a facility’s life-cycle costs. the need to replace, repair, and rebuild systems.” For example, a comprehensive 2011 study by GSA Commissioning sites in addition to buildings, through found that while vegetated roofs require increased Total Commissioning, would likely minimize these construction and maintenance costs compared to failures and their remediation costs by turning over non-vegetated roofs, the infrastructure’s longevity facilities only after meeting performance benchmarks. offsets these expenditures.4 The study estimates the In fact, the data suggest that savings rise with conservative payback of a typical vegetated roof to increasingly comprehensive commissioning. The be 6.2 years in the U.S., based on the assumption 2011 meta-analysis found that projects with a more that the average non-vegetated roof has a life comprehensive commissioning process attained expectancy of 17 and a vegetated roof extends the nearly twice the overall median level of savings of all 5 commissioned projects in the study, and five times the roof waterproofing’s life to 40 years on average (due 11 to protection from ultraviolet radiation and freeze- savings of the least-thorough commissioning projects. thaw). Vegetated roofs can provide additional financial benefits, such as downsizing stormwater management The 2011 meta-analysis also found that once a infrastructure elsewhere on the site and enhancing facility is occupied, energy efficiency constitutes views for employees (see Employee Retention and one of the primary quantifiable operational cost 6 Dorgan, et al. (2002) 1 Mills (2011) 7 Altweis (2002) 2 U.S. General Services Administration (2016) 8 Mills (2011) 3 U.S. General Services Administration (2011) 9 Nelson (1999) 4 U.S. General Services Administration (2011) 10 Alonso (2016) 5 U.S. General Services Administration (2011) 11 Mills (2011) 25 savings of building commissioning.12 The study found absenteeism, while increasing employee efficiency a 16% median energy savings for commissioned and retention, by directly impacting physical health existing buildings and 13% for new construction, and well-being.19 Exposure to these elements–which relative to non-commissioned buildings.13 A national can be achieved through biophilic design of sites study performed every four years by the federal and buildings–can lower blood pressure, improve Energy Information Administration found that LEED- stress recovery rates, enhance mental stamina certified buildings often exceed this performance, and focus, improve cognitive functions, increase with the median energy use intensity (kBtu/sf/yr) for learning rates, and elevate mood, as demonstrated commercial and office buildings as 24% and 33%, by case studies from the past 25 years.20 A 2011 respectively, lower than non-certified buildings of study by Elzeyadi found that the architecture of an the same type.14 While energy benefits are explored administrative office building in Oregon accounted in many studies, non-energy benefits are often the for a 10% variation in employees’ sick leave, and that primary reason for commissioning projects, yet only a the quality of an employee’s view was the number few of these benefits has been rigorously quantified. A one predictor of absenteeism.21 Increased occupant 2003 study by SBW and Skumatz estimated that the productivity represents another cost benefit of site average annual non-energy commissioning benefits commissioning. One study related to commissioned were $0.26 per square foot for existing buildings and buildings reported 10 – 20% higher worker productivity $0.17 per square foot for new construction.15 For most compared to non-commissioned buildings.22 A growing sites, these monetized, non-energy benefits would body of research suggests that views of a green constitute the majority of total potential savings offered outdoor environment improve worker productivity, by commissioning. and one study found the views to be a determinant of work ability and job satisfaction.23 Providing effective The literature suggests that operations and biophilic design, programming, and view-sheds maintenance training associated with site requires significant coordination between the site and commissioning procedures (particularly during design building design; a more comprehensive commissioning and construction) may result in less troubleshooting approach can further this process by shepherding and during the first year of occupancy, as well as increased verifying intertwined goals that impact human health operational efficiency overall. One such study found and happiness, and in turn, the bottom line. that the average operating costs of commissioned buildings ranged from 8 – 20% below that of Municipality-Driven Savings non-commissioned buildings, while maintenance Local incentives throughout the U.S. offer opportunities costs, specifically for commissioned office buildings, for additional savings. Utility rebate programs, for resulted in 15 – 35% savings.16 example, increasingly provide incentives to verify and document improved performance. A 2011 study of Employee Retention + Performance commissioned projects nationwide found that partial Human capital is typically an employer’s most valuable or full utility rebates were received in 84% of existing resource. Using commissioning to shepherd and verify building projects, and 68% of new construction.24 Using goals that protect employees, their productivity, and commissioning to establish and verify goals that satisfaction is therefore the single most effective way enhance a facility’s environmental sustainability can that commissioning can impact an employer’s bottom result in additional savings from expedited regulatory line. According to a 2010 BOMA report that used approval and stormwater fee reductions, in cities such 2009 U.S. Department of Labor data, the majority of as Philadelphia, PA and Portland, OR. In Washington corporate square foot costs, nationally, are devoted D.C., a project’s Stormwater Retention Credits (SRCs) to salaries (90.3%), while a relatively small amount is can be sold annually as a means of revenue (https:// used for rent and mortgage (8.9%) and even less for doee.dc.gov/src). A recent, GSA-funded study by energy (0.8%).17 Absenteeism is prevalent in all sectors, the University of Maryland and the Landscape and in the public sector, the average absentee rate Architecture Foundation estimated that the GSA’s U.S. is 4% (or more than 83 hours per year) valued at a Coast Guard Headquarters at St. Elizabeths West $2,502 average loss per employee.18 For a facility with Campus will earn 89,667 SRCs based on green roof 1,000 employees, this rate equates to an annual loss area and planted trees alone.25 The implementation of $2.5 million. Studies indicate that views of nature of carbon credit trading programs could yield similar and access to fresh air at the workplace decrease financial benefit.

12 Mills (2011) 19 Terrapin Bright Green LLC (2012) 13 Mills (2011) 20 Terrapin Bright Green LLC (2012) 14 Turner & Frankel (2008) 21 Terrapin Bright Green LLC (2012) 15 Mills, et al. (2004) 22 Lottrup, et al. (2015) 16 Ellis & Reilly (2015) 23 NGA Campus East (2013) 17 Terrapin Bright Green LLC (2012) 24 Mills (2011) 18 U.S. Department of Labor (2010) 25 Ellis & Reilly (2015) 26 INDIRECT SAVINGS Although currently there is an “insurance value gap” in ecosystem service valuation data, there are some compelling studies that highlight the importance of the Ecosystem Services Valuation 5 By expanding GSA’s commissioning program to site in mitigating risk. A study conducted in Phoenix sites, the agency could gain the additional benefits of looking at the urban heat “riskscape” over 30 years verifying that sites support key ecosystem services. of data found that vegetation provided 25 degrees Ecosystem services offer value that is not directly Celsius of cooling on summer days, a significant or explicitly tied to existing markets. Instead, they economic, environmental, and social benefit to this provide significant secondary financial, social, and community. However, the study also found that environmental benefits. These indirect benefits can there are trade-offs with the benefits of vegetation, take the form of avoided costs, replacement costs, such as irrigation demand in this water-vulnerable community, highlighting the importance of choosing factor income (added value to incomes), travel 6 cost, hedonic pricing (indirect payment for goods low-maintenance vegetation. or services), and contingent valuation (hypothetical alternative scenarios).1 For example, a 2005 study The example of the “riskscape” study in Phoenix found that municipalities across the United States highlights that, although the secondary benefits of have spent $13-65 annually per tree, yet gained the ecosystem services can be substantial, they must added value of $31-89 per tree (a $1.37 to $3.09 also be weighed with other considerations, such annual return per tree) due to indirect benefits such as ecosystem disservices (infrastructure damages, as avoided stormwater runoff, temperature regulation carbon emitted through management, allergies, and energy savings, air purification, and property irrigation demand, etc.). Another such example is the value increases.2 Other indirect benefits of ecosystem impact of trees on urban heat islands and carbon services include: noise reduction, pollution removal, balance throughout different cities in the United pollination, carbon dioxide reduction, promotion of States. Although trees are noted in numerous studies cultural identity and social resilience, recreation, as being one of the most efficient means of reducing habitat, food supply, and avoided health, legal, and urban heat islands and avoiding carbon emissions and maintenance costs. energy costs, a 2016 study found that from the nursery to disposal, planted trees can take 26 to 33 years to 7 Risk Mitigation become carbon neutral. The range depends on the Particularly relevant to the GSA’s build-to-own model, species and the intensity of maintenance (pruning site commissioning could help the agency reduce practices can have the greatest impact on emissions). its avoided and replacement costs by verifying that This study highlights that plant selection and sites have the resiliency and adaptive capacity to management have a profound impact on ecosystem withstand often unpredictable weather-related events. services and the significance of tree preservation. Avoided costs in the realm of resiliency can thus be tied to reducing vulnerability and mitigating risk.3 The indirect benefits of ecosystem services at the These benefits include reducing the probability of and site scale are an important factor in the value they vulnerability to: landslides, storm surges, flooding, heat have for the land owner, site user, and the general waves, drought, and pollutant exposure. In fact, some public. Furthermore their impacts are closely tied to insurance companies recognize commissioning’s all phases of project implementation, from pre-design propensity to manage risk, and a 2004 study reported and planning through management. For this reason, that at least one insurer offered a 10% premium credit the indirect impacts of ecosystem services should for participation in training related to commissioning.4 be considered a significant parameter of a site commissioning framework in addition to direct benefits. The value the site can provide in mitigating risk and Monitoring these services, particularly those closely reducing vulnerability is regionally specific, as not all tied to risk mitigation, should be a critical component sites are located in a coastal community, in landslide- of a site commissioning effort. prone areas, or in the arid southwest, for example.

1 deGroot, et al. (2002) 2 McPherson, et al. (2005) 5 McPherson et al. (2005) 3 Gómez-Baggethun & deGroot (2010) 6 Jenerette & Steganov (2011) 4 Mills, et al. (2004) 7 Petri, et al. (2016)

27 COMMISSIONING COSTS construction cost, the designer’s commissioning scope (which typically includes meetings and document Direct Costs review) generally ranges from 0.01 – 0.03%; the According to the largest meta-analysis of published contractor’s scope (involving meetings, documentation, building commissioning data, from 2011, “the construction checklists, and testing assistance) often equals 0.05 – 0.375%; and the commissioning median normalized cost to deliver commissioning is 3 $0.30/ft2 ($2009 currencies) for existing buildings agent scope generally falls within 0.5 – 1.5%. For and $1.16/ft 2 for new construction (or 0.4% of the total building commissioning, however, the National overall construction cost)”.1 Predating this study, Association of State Facilities Administrators suggests budgeting even more, 1.25 – 2.25%, for the GSA’s Building Commissioning Guide projected that 4 commissioning budgets would vary by project type; as commissioning agent’s fee. Additionally, budgeting a a percentage of construction cost, federal buildings slight amount for the owner to attend commissioning and border stations could cost 0.5% to commission, meetings, review documents, and attending trainings more complex projects, like courthouses, 0.8 – 1.0%, is often prudent. While these costs are specific to and the most complex projects could exceed 1.0%.2 building commissioning, their relative magnitudes are Beyond the project type itself, variables that could applicable to site commissioning within the context of sway the costs included phasing operations in a a site (rather than building) construction budget. For continuously operational facility; the depth and breadth facilities with intensely integrated building and site of desired commissioning services; and types of systems, a blended rate may be appropriate for cost systems slated for commissioning. estimation.

These same factors could similarly influence the cost Payback of site commissioning, although project complexity and Expenditures beyond a traditional construction scale–rather than facility type (e.g. courthouse)–would budget are often difficult to justify. However, more likely drive the overall commissioning budget. studies increasingly demonstrate that the benefit of As site complexity and size increase, the overall cost commissioning outweighs the cost. In fact, a 2004 of commissioning is also likely to increase. However, study prepared by the Lawrence Berkley National a caveat is that certain large site features (e.g. Laboratory found the median payback period for commissioning existing buildings to be only 0.7 central stormwater wetland) may be less expensive 5 to commission than multiple smaller elements (e.g. years, and for new construction, 4.8 years. This scattered stormwater wetlands) even if, in total, they assessment is based on energy savings alone, so the equal the size of the large feature. GSA has observed payback period could be even shorter if combined this phenomenon with building commissioning, and the with non-energy related savings. It’s important to principle similarly applies to sites. note, however, that each facility’s payback period will vary depending on the cost of both construction and The primary components of commissioning commissioning. costs relate to design fees, contractor costs, and 4 National Assoc. of State Facilities Administrators (2012) commissioning agent fees. As a percentage of 5 Mills et al. (2004) 36-8 Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (2002) 1 Mills (2011) 49 National Assoc. of State Facilities Administrators (2012) 2 General Services Administration (2005) 510 AmountMills et al.estimated (2004) by this white paper’s research team 3 Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (2002) TYPICAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING COSTS BY TEAM MEMBER

8,9

28 12 CASE STUDY MATRIX di Green Mariposa and Benain P US oas e lar Ar Soeaer endall ya Por of nry Grogan and Guard nsiue Green Federal Jerry ove eaduarers (non-SA (non-SA Building Federal a Sain proect) proect) Building liabes

Proect Statistics Nores Pacific i Soueas Noreas Ne ngland Noreas GSA isric 10 4 11 1 11 Faciliy ype ffice Building Por of enry ffice Building apus apus Par oal Acreage 1acre acres 24acres 32acres 140acres 3acres negraed esignbid esignbid esignbid Proec elivery esignBuild esignbuild delivery build build build opleion 2013 2014 2014 2013 2014 2012 Deveopment Method Ne onsrucion enovaion edevelopen Commissioning Type oissioning ecoissioning erooissioning oninuous oissioning Commissioned Buiding Systems Auoaic onrols Building nvelope ounicaions Plubing A lecrical Safey Securiy Specialies Commissioned Site Systems Auoaic onrols rrigaion Plubing Soils Soraer egeaion aseaer

* = System included in GSA’s Building Commissioning Guide1

1 General Services Administration (2005) 29 CASE STUDIES commissioned. In fact, site commissioning is such a new process that established commissioning GSA’s scale provides the agency the unique authorities are actively authoring site commissioning opportunity to demonstrate good stewardship of procedures. Nevertheless, this selection of projects both taxpayer dollars and natural resources within addresses building, combined site-building, and site the built environment. The following case studies commissioning so as to demonstrate the full breadth exemplify the way in which commissioning can be of evaluative procedures deployed by property owners. leveraged to achieve these critical goals. The case Four government projects (case studies 1-4) and studies showcase commissioning impacts for projects two non-government projects (case studies 5-6) are across a diversity of geographic locations, facility included. types, land areas, and project delivery approaches to provide a representative survey of commissioned, These case studies, which will be referenced recommissioned, and retro-commissioned projects. throughout this white paper, highlight reoccurring The selection weights building commissioning more opportunities and challenges that have been heavily than site commissioning, which is appropriate historically endemic to the commissioning process: since, to date, very few sites have been formally

Opportunities Challenges • Partnering with an established, third party • Solidifying all commissioning tasks and schedules commissioning authority as early as possible • Adapting the OPR to each project’s needs • Navigating each stakeholder’s roles and • Understanding performance goals within varying responsibilities, including liability geographies, including non-temperate climates • Developing site commissioning protocols and • Gaining operations and maintenance training procedures from scratch during the commissioning process • Conducting site commissioning without an agent • Understanding the performance of integrated site- • Occasionally allocating a facility’s development building systems budget for indirect project costs • Experiencing enhanced, verified performance • Accommodating late programmatic change • Using retro-commissioning to trouble-shoot post- requests occupancy system problems • Navigating a phased demolition process • Maintaining the owner’s commitment to • Switching commissioning agents during performance construction • Applying lessons learned to future development • Navigating a phased turnover process • Simultaneously achieving LEED, SITES, and • Translating abundant construction commissioning commissioning goals data into a continuous commissioning process • Developing site commissioning procedures and that integrates with established operations and protocols from scratch maintenance programs • Considering continuous commissioning for monitoring certain site sub-elements

30 CASE STUDY 1

PROJECT: EDITH GREEN-WENDALL WYATT FEDERAL BUILDING LOCATION: PORTLAND, OR PERFORMANCE GOAL: LEED CX AGENT: GLUMAC DESIGNER: CUTLER ANDERSON ARCHITECTS / SERA ARCHITECTS / PLACE STUDIO

The Edith Green-Wendall Wyatt Federal Building occupancy. Tasks included design document review; exemplifies how the modernization of government functional performance testing; contractor training office buildings, including those that are zero-lot-line, during system installation; and building tenant can achieve exceptional triple bottom line performance training on performance goals, facility features, and when paired with commissioning. The $139 million operational policies (which resulted in high occupant renovation of this 18-story, LEED Platinum-certified, buy-in). The commissioning authority additionally 1970s tower included replacing the building skin, engaged in continual discovery and communication mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and data systems. with the project team. The team capitalized upon The facility received federal stimulus funding, and as symbioses between commissioning and the facility’s such, was required to reach multiple energy saving integrated project delivery approach by enhancing benchmarks. The building now achieves 45% energy system design, construction, and operations, and 61% potable water use reductions1 due to the and reducing RFIs by more than 50% relative to new building skin, solar thermal panels, photovoltaics, comparable projects.2 automatic window shading devices, radiant heating and cooling, efficient lighting and plumbing fixtures, Performance Outcomes: 1) 39% energy cost and and a stormwater harvesting and re-use system that 45% energy use reduction compared to ASHRAE/ supplies toilet flushing and native landscape irrigation. IESNA Standard 90.1-2007; 2) 61% potable water use reduction compared to pre-modernization conditions; GSA retained Glumac, a third-party commissioning 3) 50% reduction in RFIs relative to comparable authority, from early in design to one year post- projects.3 2 Foreman & Lowen (2015) 1 Foreman & Lowen (2015) 3 Foreman & Lowen (2015)

31 Image credit: Nic Lehoux CASE STUDY 2

PROJECT: MARIPOSA LAND PORT OF ENTRY LOCATION: NOGALES, AZ PERFORMANCE GOAL: LEED 2.2 CX AGENT: COMMISSIONING CONCEPTS DESIGNER: JONES STUDIO / CHRIS WINTERS & ASSOCIATES / ARC STUDIOS

The expansion and modernization of the Mariposa inspection, operational testing, and functional testing. Land Port of Entry – one of the U.S.’s busiest land Design elements that helped achieve the sustainability ports – demonstrates how commissioning can occur goals included significant use of photovoltaics, a during the phased redevelopment of an active port. solar domestic hot water system, advanced lighting, The 55-acre, $187 million, LEED Gold-certified building automation system with diagnostics, and project involved the demolition of all existing buildings, additional systems for future implementation aimed acquisition of adjacent land, and construction of at assuring continued performance.1 Additionally, the new facilities and integrated site amenities. Major drought-tolerant, native landscape is irrigated with a constructed elements included buildings, inspection non-commissioned, 1-million-gallon sub-grade cistern booths, loading docks, a hazmat area, vehicular supplied by harvested rainwater from pavement and parking, pedestrian gathering spaces, landscape building roofs. Commissioning the cistern and other plantings, water features, shade structures, and site elements would have holistically verified the terraced embankments. project performance.

GSA retained Commissioning Concepts, a third- Performance Outcomes: 1) 35% of energy cost party agent, to perform commissioning during the reduction compared to ASHRAE 90.1-2004; 2) 100% design and construction phases to meet the LEED 2.2 potable water use reduction for irrigation; 3) 38% requirements. The agent commissioned five building domestic water use reduction; 4) 97% construction systems: HVAC, plumbing, lighting, electrical, and fire waste diversion from the landfill.2 protection throughout the port of entry. This process included thorough design review followed by system 1 State of Arizona, State Procurement Office (2016) 2 GreenIdeas Building Science Consultants (2017)

Image credit: Bill Timmerman 32 CASE STUDY 3

PROJECT: BENJAMIN P. GROGAN AND JERRY L. DOVE FEDERAL BUILDING LOCATION: MIRAMAR, FL PERFORMANCE GOAL: LEED; SITES PILOT PROJECT CX AGENT: JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP DESIGNER: GENSLER / KRUECK + SEXTON ARCHITECTS / CURTIS + ROGERS DESIGN STUDIO

The Benjamin P. Grogan and Jerry L. Dove Federal process, the design-engineering team self-evaluated Building transcends the goals of GSA’s Design building system performance from schematic design Excellence Program while demonstrating an elegant through construction, to ensure system performance. solution to self-evaluated building system performance Building information modeling (BIM) informed the optimization. The $194 million, 20-acre south Florida project’s thermal performance and mechanical- site contains two office buildings and a parking electrical-plumbing coordination, while also functioning structure, bordered primarily by two courtyards and as a design-assist tool during fabrication of custom restored wetlands. The LEED Platinum-certified elements, such as the building skin. Through this office complex, which was developed through GSA’s process, the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, Design Excellence Program and meets the agency’s building skin, and HVAC systems were evaluated and PBS-P100 guidelines, emphasizes daylighting, views, optimized. No record of formal site commissioning can walkability, energy efficiency, and enhanced security. be located, although post-occupancy site monitoring High-performance design features include sunscreens, will need to occur as a requisite of the project’s SITES photovoltaics (which meet 20% of the complex’s Pilot Project-certification energy demand), stormwater and greywater harvesting (which reduce water consumption by 95%), and Performance Outcomes: 1) 20% of energy wildlife-friendly lighting. demand provided by photovoltaics; 2) 95% reduction in water consumption. GSA retained Jacobs Engineering Group for construction management and total building commissioning services. In addition to this formal

33 Image credit: Taylor Lednum CASE STUDY 4

PROJECT: U.S. COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS AT SAINT ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C. PERFORMANCE GOAL: LEED 2.2 ENHANCED CX CX AGENT: RD3, INC. / UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND DESIGNER: PERKINS + WILL / WDG ARCHITECTURE, PLLC / ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES / HOK

The U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters exemplifies used for all building systems,1 as pursuant to LEED how commissioning multiple buildings within a large, 2.2 Enhanced Commissioning. Site performance federal campus can successfully fold into the LEED- was evaluated under a separate GSA-sponsored certification process. As the U.S.’s largest federal effort: a Landscape Architecture Foundation LEED 2.2 Gold-certified project and the GSA’s Landscape Performance Case Study Investigation, largest construction project in history, this 32-acre, conducted by the University of Maryland. This year- $646 million development contains a headquarters long investigation, akin to a retro-commissioning building built into a sloping hillside, a parking garage, process, examined the site’s social, environmental, central utility plant, and visitor processing center. The and economic impacts.2 The study evaluated site buildings support 12.8-acres of green roof, which stormwater and vegetation system performance. together with at-grade wet ponds, bio-swales, and step Pursuing an integrated site-building commissioning pools, provide an integrated site-building stormwater process would have served as a valuable learning strategy that harvests, treats, and re-uses site and experience, but perhaps too complex an effort for a building stormwater. Energy-efficient mechanical development of this size. and electrical systems additionally enhance the development’s performance. Performance Outcomes: 1) 1.7-inches of rainwater managed within 9.2-acres of vegetated roofs; The building commissioning agent retained by GSA 2) 14.5° cooler than buildings with non-vegetated roofs is not known, although records do indicate that the during peak heat; 3) 88% occupant satisfaction.3 headquarters building and central utility plant were fully commissioned. A commissioning process was 1 General Services Administration (n.d.) 2 Ellis & Reilly (2015) 3 Ellis & Reilly (2015)

Image credit: Andropogon Associates 34 CASE STUDY 5

PROJECT: THE CLARK ART INSTITUTE LOCATION: WILLIAMSTOWN, MA PERFORMANCE GOAL: LEED 2.2 ENHANCED CX CX AGENT: ARAMARK ENGINEERING & ASSET SOLUTIONS DESIGNER: TADEO ANDO ARCHITECTS / GENSLER / REED HILDERBRAND

The Clark Art Institute deployed one of the first, formal site commissioning became necessary. Initially, the site commissioning processes in the U.S. during a project’s landscape architect, Reed Hilderbrand, comprehensive campus renewal. Core to the 140-acre aimed to self-perform the site commissioning, but pastoral campus, is the Clark Center–a visitor through trial and error realized the advantage to exhibition and conference center with an underground engaging a certified, third party commissioning physical plant building, parking, rain gardens, and agent. The project’s acting building commissioning meadow–which received LEED 2.2 Gold-certification agent, Aramark, was therefore retained for site in 2016. As part of a coinciding campus-wide commissioning during construction. As the company’s stormwater management strategy, the Clark Center’s foray into site commissioning, the agent authored water systems are fully integrated with the surrounding testing protocols and procedures for each relevant site through a network of water collection and re-use system: stormwater management, gray water and systems. A one-acre, tiered reflecting pool that flanks irrigation, water feature pumping, water feature the Clark Center is central to this strategy. Foundation treatment, and automatic controls.2 After substantial water and roof runoff feed the reflecting pool, which completion, the owner retained the agent for retro- in turn supplies the site’s irrigation, gray water use for commissioning services to trouble-shoot a repeatedly building plumbing, and cooling tower systems.1 clogging reflecting pool purifier.

LEED 2.2 Enhanced Commissioning requires Performance Outcomes: 1) Fully-functioning verification of building system performance, but since stormwater, gray water, irrigation, and water feature the building and site systems were fully integrated, systems.

1 The Clark (2016) 2 Kramer (2013)

35 Image credit: courtesy of Gensler CASE STUDY 6

PROJECT: SHOEMAKER GREEN LOCATION: PHILADELPHIA, PA PERFORMANCE GOAL: SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE PILOT PROJECT CX AGENT: SELF-EVALUATED (ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES / UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA) DESIGNER: ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES

Shoemaker Green has supported one of the most and academic researchers conducted monitoring site comprehensive site monitoring programs of any visits multiple times per year to collect certain data, constructed landscape to date. This 2.75-acre, while relying upon continuous monitoring equipment publically accessible, greenspace at the University of and software for other data types. Monitoring and Pennsylvania contains a bioretention rain garden, large evaluation has targeted water (quality, quantity, plant green with sub-grade stormwater storage, planting transpiration rates); soil (compaction, infiltration, beds, tree trenches, permeable pavement, and a biology, moisture, pH, organic matter); plants (vigor, stormwater capture and re-use cistern that supplies species suitability); and human use (occupancy, a site irrigation system. Due to inconsistent urban behavior).1 fill composition and infiltration rates, this greyfield redevelopment is fully lined, thereby functioning While a formal commissioning process was not hydrologically like a non-infiltrating green roof. utilized, the comprehensive monitoring program Shoemaker Green’s design is optimized to manage exhibited more regularity and detail than would likely stormwater from the site and surrounding rooftops; be typical of a standardized site commissioning provide viable native plant and animal habitats; program. demonstrate sustainable land management strategies; and support large crowd of people. Performance Outcomes: 1) 3x more rainwater managed than regulatory models predicted, due to soil To meet the university’s research goals and SITE- storage capacity and plant transpiration; 2) Irrigation certification performance monitoring requirements, programming error detected and resolved. university and design team personnel initiated a robust, five-year monitoring program. The design 1 McCoy & Mandel (2017)

Image credit: Andropogon Associates 36 WORKING GROUP INPUT lack of “knowledge, training, or integration” must be overcome during all other project phases from design Analysis of existing information (including through post-warranty maintenance. Multiple working opportunities, constraints, costs, benefits, industry group members suggested that an inclusive project trends, GSA’s existing commissioning framework, delivery process–in which owner, designer, contractor, and case studies) did not provide the white paper’s maintenance and operations personnel, and research team with enough information to recommend commissioning agent work collaboratively–that starts whether GSA should pursue a site commissioning as early as possible could minimize these hurdles. process. The research team therefore solicited input More specifically, if each party across disciplines from 89 industry experts–organized into seven subject understands the owner’s performance goals and the matter-specific working groups (see appendix A)– implications of design decisions and maintenance through participation in surveys and group interviews strategies in achieving those goals, the chance of (see Appendix B). The subject matter areas were meeting the goals increases. informed by the SITES sections (see Potential Site Commissioning Metrics, p. 41), thereby maximizing Lastly, several working group members noted the compatibility with GSA’s recent, agency-wide SITES- value of an information feedback loop, to improve the certification adoption. land development and management processes over time, particularly since GSA owns and operates so GSA Sees Payback in Quality Design many facilities and continues to develop new ones. According to several working group members who are employed by GSA, the agency now builds, operates, The following sections of this white paper offer an and occupies durable facilities that are expected to actionable path forward, aimed at providing GSA with last 50 - 100 years. Some of these facilities, such a strategy to refine, implement, test, and further refine as border stations, are operational 24 hours a day, a site commissioning process that dovetails with the 365 days a year. Members from multiple working agency’s existing building commissioning program. groups stressed that given this build-to-own model and operational requirement, life-cycle costs are Support for Site Commissioning paramount to an owner’s value decision, particularly The survey and interview results revealed statistically given lost revenue associated with shutting down significant, cross-disciplinary support for GSA’s facilities under repair. Many working group members adoption of a site commissioning process. Based on therefore advocate for higher up-front costs (from the 89 person sample size, the majority of working planning / pre-design through construction) with the group members believe that a commissioning goal of optimizing a facility’s life-cycle expenditures. process for high-performance site systems would This approach is challenging under the realities of benefit GSA by positively impacting a facility’s current budgetary cycles, but poses a necessary step environmental performance (i.e. ecosystem services), in supporting long-lasting facilities that rely upon high- social performance (i.e. user experience), and performance, integrated building / site systems. financial performance (i.e. initial and life-cycle cost), respectively. After weighing the pros and cons, 79% of Overcoming Barriers working group members either “strongly encourage” Two specific barriers to high-performance site system or “encourage” GSA to pursue a site commissioning implementation stand out, across the working groups. process for all new construction and major The first barrier, client justification, is the most redevelopments. significant obstacle to overcome during a project’s planning / pre-design phase. The second barrier,

37 lack of “knowledge, training, or integration” must be overcome during all other project phases from design through post-warranty maintenance. Multiple working group members suggested that an inclusive project delivery process–in which owner, designer, contractor, maintenance and operations personnel, and commissioning agent work collaboratively–that starts as early as possible could minimize these hurdles. More specifically, if each party across disciplines understands the owner’s performance goals and the implications of design decisions and maintenance strategies in achieving those goals, the chance of THE SURVEY + INTERVIEW RESULTS REVEALED STATISTICALLY meeting the goals increases. SIGNIFICANT, CROSS-DISCIPLINARY SUPPORT FOR Lastly, several working group members noted the value of an information feedback loop, to improve the GSA’S ADOPTION OF A SITE COMMISSIONING PROCESS land development and management processes over time, particularly since GSA owns and operates so many facilities and continues to develop new ones.

The following sections of this white paper offer an actionable path forward, aimed at providing GSA with a strategy to refine, implement, test, and further refine a site commissioning process that dovetails with the agency’s existing building commissioning program.

Support for Site Commissioning The survey and interview results revealed statistically significant, cross-disciplinary support for GSA’s adoption of a site commissioning process. Based on the 89 person sample size, the majority of working group members believe that a commissioning process for high-performance site systems would benefit GSA by positively impacting a facility’s environmental performance (i.e. ecosystem services), social performance (i.e. user experience), and financial performance (i.e. initial and life-cycle cost), respectively. After weighing the pros and cons, 79% of working group members either “strongly encourage” or “encourage” GSA to pursue a site commissioning process for all new construction and major redevelopments.

Above: Anticipated triple bottom line benefits and degree of support for GSA’s adoption of a site commissioning process. Data source: All working group surveys, administered by Andropogon Associates (n = 89) 38 39 4. PROCESS FRAMEWORK

Shoemaker Green–a 2.75-acre greenspace at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, PA– exemplifies how strategic redevelopment within a tight, urban site can yield an ecologically valuable, high-performing landscape. The SITES-certified project supports a five-year site monitoring study aimed at addressing the knowledge gap between science and policy by informing new engineering models, advocating for progressive regulations, and advancing sustainable site design.

Image credit: Andropogon Associates

40 POTENTIAL SITE For example, water use serves as a relevant agency- wide commissioning metric for GSA because the COMMISSIONING METRICS agency is embarking on an ambitious net-zero water development approach, which will elevate the need for Measuring performance is essential in determining GSA facility owners to know exactly how site-building whether specific design and operational goals are stormwater and wastewater systems are performing being achieved. Assessment metrics are standards of throughout a facility’s lifetime. After verifying that measurement that provide a means for quantifying or a facility is designed and constructed to achieve qualifying performance, which can then be evaluated net-zero water, commissioning will verify whether against benchmarks that are established during the hydrologic goal is being met. Any shortcomings pre-development. Some benchmarks may apply present opportunities for remediation. This could agency-wide or to a certain geographic region or include re-examining the site’s monitoring equipment facility type. Others may be entirely site specific. functionality, built system (e.g. rain garden) condition,

Above: Evolution of site commissioning attributes; 41 Opposite: Site commissioning attributes diagram and management practices. Perhaps a rainwater and effort to measure and evaluate, but are equally harvesting and re-use irrigation system was improperly important to support. programmed, resulting in the system turning on when the soil is already saturated. Resolving problems like The Site Commissioning Assessment Metrics Chart these would result in improved hydrologic performance (see p. 43) lists the seven attributes (e.g. water), which during the next monitoring or commissioning period, each consist of performance metrics (e.g. water use) while also conserving natural resources. Site and general examples of data types (e.g. volume). commissioning assessment metrics can therefore The chart includes three performance tiers with a serve to strengthen established regulatory, design 1-3 star rating system, much like the PBS-P100. excellence, and rating system requirements to ensure The chart proposes phase engagement for each that each site performs as intended by the facility metric, to illustrate when each metric would be most owner’s OPR. effectively integrated into the project-delivery process, from pre-design through long-term post occupancy. To determine which assessment metrics are most Monitoring frequency for each metric is additionally applicable to site commissioning, this white paper’s proposed. research team built upon existing performance frameworks, most notably the five PBS-P100 Tier 1: Basic level of required site performance that landscape performance attributes and the ten contains only core attributes. Includes metrics that are SITES v2 sections.1 Synthesizing and reorganizing already adopted by GSA through existing requirements these existing frameworks resulted in seven site and/or likely to result in direct financial savings. commissioning attributes (see p. 41). Shown below in green are the “core attributes”–water, soil, vegetation, Tier 2: Optional, enhanced level of site performance and materials–which are relatively easy and cost that builds upon Tier 1 requirements with metrics that effective to monitor and evaluate using common require more resources to assess. technology and skill sets. In yellow are the “supporting attributes”–habitat, human health and well-being, and Tier 3: Optional, comprehensive level of site climate–which require more sophisticated expertise performance that builds upon Tier 2 to provide a detailed, holistic understanding of site functioning. 1 Sustainable SITES Initiative (2014)

42 ASSESSMENT METRICS DATA TYPES PERFORMANCE LEVEL PHASE ENGAGEMENT MONITORING FREUENCY

SITE COMMISSIONING ASSESSMENT METRICS CHART

CORE ATTRIBUTES CORE Species icness Plan couns, biodiversiy, Plan Seardsip nde ranspiraion eaf area inde, poroeer easureen, sap flo eer Materias onsrucabiliy onsrucion eods evaluaion urabiliy orrosion, cracing, disfigureen, discoloring Porous Paveen Pereabiliy nfilraion rae osBenefi Firs cos, ainenance cos, replaceen cos and freuency Habitat abia alue Plan species selecion, bloo ie, fruiing ie Pollinaor Biodiversiy icness, evenness Nonpollinaor Biodiversiy icness, evenness Human Heath + We-Being Accessibiliy ABAAS copliance, ease of ayfinding Access o Aeniies Access o pysical aciviy and enally resoraive locaions Safey nciden repors, crie saisics Saisfacion ployee reenion rae, selfrepored appiness uan Beavior User couns, beavior apping, preference ducaional alue nerpreive eleen uaniyualiy, user undersanding ocal conoic pac ployeeconracor coue disance, aerial purcases SUPPORTING ATTRIBUTES SUPPORTING Cimate eaer Air eperaure, relaive uidiy, precipiaion, ildfire ris nergy Use Maerial ebodied energy, aage usage, eissions ea sland ffec Albedo, saded area, surface eperaure arbon Seuesraion arbon fooprin, carbon sorage, carbon credis

43 ASSESSMENT METRICS DATA TYPES PERFORMANCE LEVEL PHASE ENGAGEMENT MONITORING FREUENCY

Assessen Merics General aples ier 1 ier 2 ier 3 Planning Preesign esign onsrucion Subsanial opleion Pos onsrucion nly during consrucion nly a end of arrany Annually uarely oninuously Water aer Use aer balance, capurereuse, irrigaion rae, discarge rae Flo ae eaer daa, discarge rae, runoff volue aer ualiy eperaure, dissolved 2, p, suspended solids, nuriens Soi Sorage apaciy oal pore space, aer olding capaciy eical Properies , a, Mg, p, soluble sals, caion ecange capaciy Pysical Properies Paricle sie disribuion, oisure, infilraion, copacion Biological Properies Soil organic aer, acronuriens and icronuriens, icrobial bioass , N, paogens Vegetation Plan overage Percen cover, coverage densiy, bioass eal igor eig, spread, B, rooing dep, florescence, disease Mainenance ffor oal ours, oal epenses Species icness Plan couns, biodiversiy, Plan Seardsip nde ranspiraion eaf area inde, poroeer easureen, sap flo eer Materias onsrucabiliy onsrucion eods evaluaion urabiliy orrosion, cracing, disfigureen, discoloring Porous Paveen Pereabiliy nfilraion rae osBenefi Firs cos, ainenance cos, replaceen cos and freuency Habitat abia alue Plan species selecion, bloo ie, fruiing ie Pollinaor Biodiversiy icness, evenness Nonpollinaor Biodiversiy icness, evenness Human Heath + We-Being Accessibiliy ABAAS copliance, ease of ayfinding Access o Aeniies Access o pysical aciviy and enally resoraive locaions Safey nciden repors, crie saisics Saisfacion ployee reenion rae, selfrepored appiness uan Beavior User couns, beavior apping, preference ducaional alue nerpreive eleen uaniyualiy, user undersanding ocal conoic pac ployeeconracor coue disance, aerial purcases Cimate eaer Air eperaure, relaive uidiy, precipiaion, ildfire ris nergy Use Maerial ebodied energy, aage usage, eissions ea sland ffec Albedo, saded area, surface eperaure arbon Seuesraion arbon fooprin, carbon sorage, carbon credis

* = Frequencies recommended by Working Groups to gain basic performance data that balances cost, accuracy + usefulness 44 CATEGORIZING variation, many site features increase in performance over time, when managed appropriately. For example, SITE “SYSTEMS” if kept free of invasive species, a floodplain forest will typically manage more stormwater (through Site systems are often interdependent, meaning transpiration), sequester more carbon, and increase that the performance of one system may affect the in habitat value over time. GSA’s site commissioning measurable performance of another. In fact, when this process should therefore anticipate specific white paper’s working groups (see Appendix B) were performance trajectories and build these assumptions asked, via survey, to what degree the performance into each facility’s commissioning plan. Required of one type of high-performance site system (e.g. maintenance and operations resources are similarly those related to water) are typically interdependent likely to change over time. For vegetated systems, with others (e.g. those related to vegetation) within the most attention is required during the critical facilities that contain integrated building / site systems, establishment period, which is typically until 2 – 3 participants reported that all system influence one years after planting. another, to a degree of more than 50%, regardless of type. Across all working groups, high-performance Data Collection Schedule water systems were reported to be the most GSA’s site commissioning process should aim, interdependent system type, at 80%: at a minimum, to gain the most basic, meaningful performance data possible, that is, the data that High-Performance Interdependence to reveals fundamental performance efficiencies Site System Type Other Site Systems and indicates problems. Facility’s owners and/or Water 80% tenants who seek to integrate more comprehensive Vegetation 71% monitoring initiatives should be encouraged to do so, but for the sake of program-wide cost efficiency Climate 66% and ease of execution throughout a facility’s lifetime, Soil 64% basic monitoring should be the required default. Human Health & Well-Being 62% Monitoring frequency varies for each performance Habitat 61% metric (see Site Commissioning Assessment Metrics Chart, p. 43). For example, basic monitoring of a Materials 54% soil’s storage capacity is most effectively measured during construction only, while chemical and This finding underscores the complexity of site physical properties should be measured annually.1 systems, and the difficulty involved with separating and For hydrologic systems, water quality should be categorizing them into units that can be individually measured quarterly, while flow rate requires continual commissioned. Despite this complexity, dividing site monitoring.2 Each facility’s design and management systems into “commissionable” units is critical in team should establish the monitoring methods that developing an actionable site commissioning process. will be used to assess each metric. The range of methods could include secondary data source review Commissioning System Components (e.g. for weather data), field observation / inspection, When Working Group participants were asked which low-cost field tests, portable equipment field tests, characteristic they would use to define the units, 40% in-situ equipment monitoring, and laboratory analysis. said that performance goal (e.g. all elements that Continual monitoring typically requires in-situ contribute to achieving a single performance goal), equipment, which should be integrated into the and 32% said that system component (e.g. plaza, rain project’s design. garden, green roof) should be the defining variable. Due to the inherent complexities associated with Commissioning Schedule categorizing units by performance goal, the white When paired with adaptive management, site paper’s research team recommends that GSA rely monitoring is a continual process that achieves upon system component as the commissioning unit. performance measurement, performance verification, Performance data from each system component could and calibration of under-performing systems. By then be measured against the facility’s overarching contrast, site commissioning and recommissioning performance goals. function as periodic data analysis and formal reporting efforts (like a third party audit) that occur at intervals Performance Trajectory predetermined by the facility’s commissioning plan. Unlike building systems that remain relatively static over time, living site systems are, by definition, in 1 Mandel & McCoy (2017e) a constant state of flux. In addition to short-term 2 Mandel & McCoy (2017g)

45 variation, many site features increase in performance This distinction differs significantly from building The white paper’s research team therefore over time, when managed appropriately. For example, commissioning, wherein a relatively static system (e.g. recommends the following commissioning schedule if kept free of invasive species, a floodplain forest heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)) can approach, during which time monitoring and adaptive will typically manage more stormwater (through be examined during a commissioning inspection every management would occur continually: transpiration), sequester more carbon, and increase 3 – 5 years, and then calibrated as needed at that Commissioning begins during the planning in habitat value over time. GSA’s site commissioning time. Living site systems are unique in that they do not / pre-design phase and ends two years after process should therefore anticipate specific have “on / off switches.” Their change is constant, and construction completion, which is the length of a performance trajectories and build these assumptions waiting several years to remediate under-performance standard plant establishment period and aligned with into each facility’s commissioning plan. Required can devastate the system’s long-term functioning and the turnover from “early stage management”3 to “long- maintenance and operations resources are similarly the performance of interdependent systems. Sites term management”4 contractor likely to change over time. For vegetated systems, therefore require a two-pronged approach, in which Recommissioning occurs every 3 – 5 years the most attention is required during the critical monitoring / adaptive management and commissioning after the initial recommissioning, concurrent with the establishment period, which is typically until 2 – 3 function as complementary processes aimed at facility’s established building commissioning schedule. years after planting. achieving a unified goal. 3 Mandel & McCoy (2017f) Data Collection Schedule 4 Mandel & McCoy (2017f) GSA’s site commissioning process should aim, at a minimum, to gain the most basic, meaningful performance data possible, that is, the data that reveals fundamental performance efficiencies and indicates problems. Facility’s owners and/or tenants who seek to integrate more comprehensive monitoring initiatives should be encouraged to do so, but for the sake of program-wide cost efficiency and ease of execution throughout a facility’s lifetime, basic monitoring should be the required default. Monitoring frequency varies for each performance metric (see Site Commissioning Assessment Metrics Chart, p. 43). For example, basic monitoring of a soil’s storage capacity is most effectively measured during construction only, while chemical and physical properties should be measured annually.1 For hydrologic systems, water quality should be measured quarterly, while flow rate requires continual monitoring.2 Each facility’s design and management team should establish the monitoring methods that will be used to assess each metric. The range of methods could include secondary data source review (e.g. for weather data), field observation / inspection, low-cost field tests, portable equipment field tests, in-situ equipment monitoring, and laboratory analysis. Continual monitoring typically requires in-situ equipment, which should be integrated into the project’s design.

Commissioning Schedule When paired with adaptive management, site monitoring is a continual process that achieves performance measurement, performance verification, and calibration of under-performing systems. By contrast, site commissioning and recommissioning function as periodic data analysis and formal reporting efforts (like a third party audit) that occur at intervals predetermined by the facility’s commissioning plan.

1 Mandel & McCoy (2017e) 2 Mandel & McCoy (2017g)

46 INTEGRATION INTO GSA’S Planning / Pre-Design #1: Successful site commissioning requires an CURRENT BUILDING inclusive project delivery process, in which owner, designer, contractor, maintenance and operations COMMISSIONING PROCESS personnel, and commissioning agent work collaboratively, starting as early as possible. This GSA’s site commissioning process must dovetail into means that GSA’s project manager should identify the agency’s existing Total Building Commissioning and retain the project team – architect / engineer process, thereby building on what has already been (A/E), landscape architect, construction management vetted, implemented, and accepted. The diagram agent (CM), and commissioning agent (CxA) – during below offers recommended actions specific to site the facility’s planning / pre-design phase. During the commissioning (shown in red) inserted into GSA’s hiring process, the project manager should secure existing commissioning process (shown in gray - for site commissioning understanding and buy-in from the a detailed description see GSA’s Existing Building team, as well as from facility user representatives. Commissioning Process, p. 21). The number #2: The team must then work together to inform associated with each chronological action keys into the owner about the implications of potential facility the following pages of this white paper, which illustrate performance requirements, as “owner interest” is one how site commissioning could plug into three project of the most significant hurdles to implementing high- delivery models that GSA regularly deploys: design- performance site systems (see Appendix B). Once the bid-build, design-build, and integrated project delivery. owner’s project requirements (OPR) are established, the chance of meeting those goals increases as each The most critical moments for site commissioning party across disciplines understands how design during each delivery phase (regardless of project decisions and maintenance strategies impact those delivery model) are client justification and goal goals. [P2.1, P2.2, P2.3, C2.4] setting; design, construction, and management team Design member hiring; and project turnover. Here are the #7: When updating the commissioning plan during detailed concepts and critical moments during each this phase, the team should incorporate the anticipated delivery phase, regardless of project delivery model, performance trajectory for each feature (see that are unique to site commissioning. SITES credits Categorizing Site Systems, p. 45). [P4.1, P4.2, P4.3] embedded in the process (see Appendix C) are shown in brackets:

PROCUREMENT PLANNING / PRE-DESIGN DESIGN PROCESS 1 IDENTIFY Cx TEAM INCORPORATE Cx INTO A/E • COMMUNITY + CM SCOPES OF SERVICES PLANNING + RETAIN A/E, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, CM + CxA RETAIN Cx AGENT • PROSPECTUS 2 5 DEVELOPMENT DEFINE OWNER’S PROJECT REVIEW OWNER’S PROJECT STUDY REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS + BASIS OF DESIGN 3 DEFINE PRELIMINARY Cx PLAN • PROJECT 6 AUTHORIZATION CONCEPT, DD, + CD 4 ESTABLISH INITIAL Cx BUDGET DESIGN REVIEWS • PROJECT 7 DEVELOPMENT UPDATE / REFINE Cx PLAN

• PROJECT 8 DEVELOP MONITORING EXECUTION METHODS + PLAN FOR EQUIPMENT INTEGRATION WITH DESIGN + MANAGEMENT TEAM

9 DEVELOP Cx SPEC

LANGUAGE FOR DIVISION 1 LEGEND Impact: CX INTEGRATED INTO Impact: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS CURRENT PROCESS FEASIBILITY + PROGRAM ALIGNED WITH OWNER’S RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT STUDIES PROJECT REQUIREMENTS CHANGE

47 Above: Site commissioning integrated into GSA’s current commissioning process (see p. 24) #8: Concurrent with design development and the facility’s capitol budget to ensure proper execution. construction documentation, the design and [P8.1, C8.4] management team must develop monitoring methods #19: Remediation of operational deficiencies will and plan accordingly for any monitoring equipment ensure system performance before project turnover to slated for integration into the site. [P9.3] the long-term management party. #9: The commissioning specification language that is #22: Long-term management party training at the end produced next, should be incorporated into Division of the Early-Stage Management period will provide 1, and then referenced in all relevant specification supplementary, hands-on knowledge exchange. sections. Development of clear, well-documented operations procedures should be developed, so that Long-Term Management changes in management personnel do not impact #23: While not included in GSA’s Total Building system performance. Commissioning process, this phase is critical for the long-term performance of living site systems. During Construction this phase, the monitoring schedule will continue as #15: To catch operational deficiencies before project in the previous phase, but the adaptive management turnover (thereby managing liability), sites systems should be less intensive and included in the facility’s and monitoring equipment should be tested and operations budget. remediated before submission of the commissioning #24: A two-pronged approach of monitoring / adaptive record. [P7.3, P8.1] management and commissioning will formalize a process for identifying, reporting, and remediating site Post-Construction system performance deficiencies. #17: Unlike GSA’s Total Building Commissioning #25: Logging data and lessons learned into an protocol, which calls for commissioning completion agency-wide adaptive feedback loop system will at a minimum of one year after construction, sites improve best practices over time and aid in life-cycle will require two years, to accommodate plant analysis, particularly since GSA owns and operates establishment and seasonal changes, and align with so many facilities and continues to develop new ones. warranties and the Early-Stage Management period. [C9.1] During this time continual monitoring and adaptive #27: During this phase, the site should be management will guide the maturing site along the recommissioned on the same schedule as the facility’s performance trajectories defined in the OPR. The buildings (every 3 – 5 years). management during this phase should be included in

CONSTRUCTION POST-CONSTRUCTION LONG-TERM

10 REVIEW SUBMITTALS FOR 17 PERFORM MONITORING + 23 PERFORM MONITORING PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ADAPTIVE EARLY-STAGE + ADAPTIVE LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT FOR 2 YEARS, MANAGEMENT AS DEFINED 11 DEVELOP + UTILIZE AS DEFINED IN Cx PLAN IN Cx PLAN CONSTRUCTION CHECKLIST 18 PERFORM DEFERRED + 24 IDENTIFY, REPORT + 12 OVERSEE + DOCUMENT SEASONAL TESTING REMEDIATE PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE TESTING DEFICIENCIES 19 13 REINSPECT / REVIEW HOLD Cx TEAM MEETINGS + PERFORMANCE BEFORE END 25 REPORT BEST PRACTICES + REPORT PROGRESS OF WARRANTY PERIOD LOG DATA INTO AGENCY-WIDE ADAPTIVE FEEDBACK LOOP 14 CONDUCT OWNER TRAINING + REMEDIATE DEFICIENCIES SYSTEM 20 15 TEST + REMEDIATE SITE COMPLETE FINAL Cx REPORT 26 PERFORM OWNER + SYSTEM FUNCTIONING + MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL MONITORING EQUIPMENT 21 CONDUCT FINAL RE-TRAINING AS NEEDED SATISFACTION REVIEW WITH 16 TURN OVER Cx RECORD CUSTOMER AGENCY 27 ReCx SITE EVERY 3-5 YEARS, ON FACILITY’S BUILDING Cx 22 PERFORM LONG-TERM SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT TRAINING

Impact: SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Impact: LIABILITY TRANSFERS Impact: LIABILITY TRANSFERS DOCUMENTED + ACCEPTED FROM DESIGN TEAM TO EARLY- FROM EARLY-STAGE TO LONG- STAGE MANAGEMENT ENTITY TERM MANAGEMENT ENTITY

48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

49 Above: Critical moments and proposed changes to support site commissioning’s integration into common project delivery models 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

QUALIFICATIONS- well-being) within a given facility. It’s most likely that these professionals would by contracted to the BASED PROCESS FOR building commissioning firm as sub-consultants until demand for site commissioning grows enough to HIRING COMMISSIONING support in-house positions. For example, the building PROFESSIONALS commissioning industry relied upon building skin sub-consultants for approximately 17 years before experiencing sufficient demand to bring them in-house Since site commissioning is an emerging practice, 1 site commissioning agents (abbreviated here as as employees, which has occurred only recently. “SCxA”)do not formally exist. How, then, could GSA Contracting site commissioning professionals under apply a qualifications-based process to hiring those the building commissioning umbrella could provide an who will commission the agency’s sites? Who fills opportunity for established building commissioning this void? As with LEED and SITES, the necessary processes to adapt to the unique needs of sites. skills, knowledge, training, and ultimately, professional The approach would be additionally beneficial in certification programs for site commissioning will streamlining the communication for the commissioning likely be adopted within the marketplace over time to of integrated building / site systems, when compared meet increasing project needs and owner demand. to commissioning the building and site through two GSA’s adoption of site commissioning could kick-start distinct contractual entities. a similar type of marketplace, for site commissioning professionals. Long-Term Approach: Once the site commissioning marketplace begins to develop, which 2 3 The white paper’s research team therefore based on existing precedents could take 5 – 15 recommend sa two-step approach to hiring third-party years, GSA should craft requests for qualifications commissioning professionals, based on this projected (RFQs) and requests for proposals (RFPs) that solicit marketplace development. A sample scope of services either building commissioning firms with in-house site for these site commissioning agents is provided in commissioning professionals; or site commissioning Appendix D. firms. The RFQs, in particular, should request qualifications based on the agent’s previous site Initial Approach: During the initial process commissioning experience and any SCxA certification roll-out (see Process Implementation, p. 54) GSA that may exist at that time. Additionally, when hiring should solicit a building commissioning agent site commissioning professionals, GSA should feel that has, or could readily acquire, the expertise confident that the entity will remain in existence for the needed to commission the facility’s site. Potential duration of the facility’s design life in order to maintain professionals with relevant expertise could include continuity. These requirements will result in higher- horticulturists, field researchers, civil engineers, quality commissioning services and better performing or other site performance subject matter experts. facilities, while creating marketplace demand within Multiple contributors would likely be required to the site commissioning marketplace. address the breadth of site commissioning attributes 1 King (2017) (e.g. water, plants, materials, human health and 2 Kelly (2017) 3 King (2017)

Image credit: Andropogon Associates

52 53 5. PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION

In Albuquerque, New Mexico’s high desert, the 4.4-acre Pete V. Domenici U.S. Courthouse plaza renovation demonstrates ecological, economic, and cultural sustainability within the region’s challenging climate. The public space, designed by Rios Clementi Hale Studio, relies upon elements including drought-tolerant plantings, harvested rainwater, and an efficient landscape irrigation system, to reduce the site’s potable water use by more than 75% of its pre-redevelopment rate. In 2013 this Sustainable SITES Initiative Pilot Project became GSA’s first SITES-certified facility.

Image: courtesy of GSA

54 NESTED SCALES OF laboratory, post office, and data processing center. The expectations of those typologies that typically IMPLEMENTATION occupy large, spacious campuses (e.g. land port of entry), for example, must be approached differently The implementation of GSA’s site commissioning than those found in zero-lot-line urban sites (e.g. process will occur at four levels, or nested scales, from courthouse). project to agency level: Regional Scale: At a broader level, GSA’s site Project Scale: At the individual project level, commissioning process should be based on the region GSA will integrate site commissioning into the in which a facility is located. The 50 U.S. states fall agency’s established procurement and Total Building into 11 GSA regions, each of which contains its own Commissioning processes (see Integration into GSA’s performative needs based on geography and climate. Existing Building Commissioning Process, p. 47). For example, GSA’s Pacific Rim region (AZ, CA, NV, Key milestones will include: 1) Owner buy-in and goal HI) might emphasize water conservation, whereas the setting / OPR development; 2) Design documentation New England region (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) might with emphases on delivery team communication, stress ice and snow management. Independent of interdisciplinary collaboration, performance-based these divisions, the country can be subdivided into the specifications, and meeting the OPR; 3) Construction U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ecoregions with strategies in place for plant procurement,1 soil (ecologically similar regions).4 The latter organization protection,2 and acceptable performance-based contains more meaningful distinctions from an material substitutions;3 and 4) Adaptive management, ecological perspective, while the former is more monitoring, and repair or calibration of under- practical in terms of agency management and tracking. performing site features. Agency Scale: Agency-wide implementation Facility Type Scale: GSA’s site commissioning will require an administrative program lead that process must respond to the unique spatial and collaborates with regional-level liaisons in order to performative needs of the agency’s six facility gain feedback from each project. GSA’s existing types: office building, land port of entry, courthouse, regional horticultural team leads could qualify for these positions. 1 Vegetation Working Group (2017) 2 Soil Working Group (2017) 3 Materials Working Group (2017) 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2016)

55 Above: Four nestled scales of site commissioning implementation GRADUATED Years 4 -6 • Refine the site commissioning process framework ROLL-OUT STRATEGY based on lessons learned from pilot projects • Adapt to unique needs of each facility type GSA’s site commissioning process should be • Adapt to unique needs of each GSA region implemented in stages, to provide opportunity for • Transition from pilot to fully-formulated process initial testing, adaptive feedback, buy-in, and continual • Increase opportunities for higher-performing improvement over time. The white paper’s research facilities by launching paths for and team therefore recommends the launch of a three- performance level ratings (see Site Commissioning year pilot program, as was successfully executed Assessment Metrics Chart, p. 43) during the implementation of SITES, followed by the fully-formulated process launch. Also recommended Years 7+ is a formal revaluation of the process every 10 years • Continue to expand portfolio of building / site to work out any “kinks” that may arise as the process commissioned facilities develops. Here is the recommended graduated roll-out • Create reward system for highest-performing time line: facilities and associated design and implementation teams Years 1-3 • Advance process through adaptive feedback (see • Appoint GSA’s site commissioning program lead Adaptive Feedback Loop, p. 59) • Coordinate proposed roll-out strategy with GSA’s • Reevaluate the process every 10 years Total Building Commissioning program lead/ liaison • Test roll-out at the project level • Select pilot projects from planned project portfolio prioritizing facility type and regional diversity • Encourage owners to pursue performance level rating (see Site Commissioning Assessment Metrics Chart, p. 43) • Organize feedback around facility type and region to gain data about cause and effect

Image credit: Andropogon Associates 56 REQUIRED RESOURCES performance trends (searchable by site feature type and size, facility type, and region) to make What would it take for GSA to refine and implement a informed decisions while advancing GSA projects. site commissioning process for all new construction • Communications strategy that emphasizes and substantial renovations? Here are some of the the process’ triple bottom line benefits. A web required resources, which all depend upon the a long- presence for public outreach and prospective term financial commitment by the federal government: consultants is critical to this effort, and should be considered as an addition to GSA’s existing • Personnel, including an administrative program “Landscape Architecture” web page (www.gsa. lead (at the federal level); regional liaisons; gov/portal/category/101730) and also linked to on and staff dedicated to process implementation, the agency’s “Commissioning” web page (www. operations, communications, and compliance. gsa.gov/portal/category/21063). Additionally, • Digital tools such as: 1) A decision tree to promoting the site commissioning process through lead project teams through critical decisions GSA’s existing social media platforms (Facebook, and scenarios from planning through long-term Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, Pinterest, and blog) management; 2) Integrated project management could effectively and economically increase public software that tracks tasks, progress, schedule, awareness and receptiveness to the process, as and communication, such as through Proliance could creating an award category for projects that Construction Management Software, Newforma, demonstrate excellence in site commissioning. Procore, or Synchro Software; 3) An agency-wide • Time and Dedication are required to monitoring database that centralizes real-time successfully implement and sustain a site field data and provides an outlet for data synthesis commissioning process. GSA’s established Total to easily distill trends; and 4) An online platform Building Commissioning program shows the for design and management teams to access agency’s potential for this commitment. PARTNERSHIPS + BUY-IN large scale and the opportunity for repeat business with GSA. Of equal importance is GSA’s ability to A site commissioning process will never be establish a clear strategy for managing liability. Site implemented without public sector buy-in by GSA and commissioning will uncover performance deficiencies other relevant federal agencies. Key to this buy-in is (e.g. a rain garden that manages less water than a commitment to process development, execution, intended), so design, construction, site management, and management. Additionally, a commitment to and commissioning professionals must understand awarding projects to the most qualified design teams, and agree to GSA’s strategy for remediating under- site management companies, and commissioning performance (e.g. reconstructing the rain garden with agents (see Qualifications-Based Process for Hiring different soil types) that minimizes finger pointing and Commissioning Professionals, p. 52) would further associated lawsuits. solidify the process’ success while benefiting the quality of information provided during the duration of Strategic partnerships with academia and non-profits the pilot program (see Graduated Roll-Out Strategy, p. will additionally foster the process’ successful 56). implementation. These entities would be the likely candidates for developing site commissioning From the private sector, successful implementation training programs, continuing education classes, and requires industry buy-in of both the concept of site ultimately, a trade organization that offers professional commissioning and GSA’s program requirements. To certification. Precedents for this type of industry achieve this, industry members must perceive a clear trajectory with professional certification exist for benefit to exposing their companies to the inherent building commissioning (The Building Commissioning risk associated with engaging in something new. Association), LEED (U.S. Green Building Council), and This perceived benefit would most likely be financial, SITES (Green Business Certification Inc.). whereby companies pursue projects due to their

Image credit: Nic Lehoux ADAPTIVE FEEDBACK LOOP

Development of an accessible, agency-wide adaptive feedback loop will allow GSA to cultivate cumulative, institutional knowledge. This organizational approach to collecting and disseminating information at all four nested scales of site commissioning must respond to the agency’s existing project procurement process, design and construction programs (e.g. Design Excellence, Total Building Commissioning), and standards (e.g. PBS-P100, LEED, SITES). It could take the form of a database or other digital interface that is compatible with GSA’s existing Building Automated Systems software.

Commissioning then becomes a tool that integrates the adaptive feedback loop into each project’s design, construction, management, and reporting practices. The feedback loop is inherently cyclical, meaning that information gleaned from the successes and failures of one project directly informs decisions made during the implementation and management of the next. The process can additionally help to refine the project team composition and the assessment metrics over time.

Design: When establishing a new facility’s OPR, owners can review the initial goals and actual performance of operational facilities as documented in the database. Design and management teams can similarly reference monitoring methods plans and equipment integration strategies from previous projects, so mistakes are not repeated. The team’s actions and results then enter into the feedback loop to benefit future projects.

Build: During construction, measurement, verification, and calibration, data enters the feedback loop. This information is then accessible to the facility’s commissioning agent and becomes available for owner training. A centralized record of this

59 Above: Adaptive feedback loop ADAPTIVE FEEDBACK LOOP information helps reduce liability disputes after project turnover from designer to early-stage management Development of an accessible, agency-wide adaptive entity to long-term management entity. feedback loop will allow GSA to cultivate cumulative, institutional knowledge. This organizational approach Manage: A facility experiences adaptive to collecting and disseminating information at all four management and monitoring for most of it’s life- nested scales of site commissioning must respond to cycle. Measurement, verification, calibration, and the agency’s existing project procurement process, data entry into the feedback loop are therefore design and construction programs (e.g. Design essential, as is learning from approaches used in the Excellence, Total Building Commissioning), and past. Management and monitoring information must standards (e.g. PBS-P100, LEED, SITES). It could take be accessible to the facility’s commissioning agent the form of a database or other digital interface that and available for management re-training in case of is compatible with GSA’s existing Building Automated employee turnover. Systems software. Report: In addition to inputing detailed project Commissioning then becomes a tool that integrates information (i.e. performance goals, monitoring the adaptive feedback loop into each project’s design, methods, equipment integration strategies, and data) construction, management, and reporting practices. into the feedback loop, a granular summary of each The feedback loop is inherently cyclical, meaning that project should be submitted. The summary should information gleaned from the successes and failures reflect what worked and what didn’t during each of one project directly informs decisions made during project phase and how decisions influenced the the implementation and management of the next. The OPR. These summaries should be readily accessible process can additionally help to refine the project team by GSA and the design and management teams to composition and the assessment metrics over time. quickly reference best practices, typical performance efficiencies, and how features can be expected to Design: When establishing a new facility’s OPR, perform based on composition, scale, facility type, and owners can review the initial goals and actual region. performance of operational facilities as documented in the database. Design and management teams This approach suggests a paradigm shift, in which can similarly reference monitoring methods plans project delivery is no longer viewed as a linear and equipment integration strategies from previous process, but rather a cyclical one that increasingly projects, so mistakes are not repeated. The team’s breeds better performing projects over time. Nested actions and results then enter into the feedback loop feedback domains for individual projects, facility types, to benefit future projects. GSA regions, and the whole agency would further benefit GSA’s knowledge base. Eventually, additional Build: During construction, measurement, feedback loops for the design, product manufacturing, verification, and calibration, data enters the feedback construction, and stewardship industries could also loop. This information is then accessible to the spin off to benefit the greater good. This is how GSA facility’s commissioning agent and becomes available positively impacts people, planet, and profit at an for owner training. A centralized record of this unprecedented scale of influence.

60 GSA’s 32-acre U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters at Saint Elizabeths West Campus, in Washington D.C., demonstrates a high-performance approach to campus design that integrates building and site systems. This LEED Gold-certified redevelopment, completed in 2013, underwent a total building commissioning process.

Image credit: James Steinkamp of James Steinkamp Photography

61 6. NEXT STEPS

Image credit: James Steinkamp of James Steinkamp Photography

62 ACTION ITEMS

The following seven steps to can lead GSA to 4. Secure buy-in from public and private sector successfully implementing the site commissioning entities while cultivating partnerships (see p. 58) process outlined in this white paper: 5. Create adaptive feedback loop with an 1. Re-frame GSA’s commissioning program accessible interface that allows GSA to cultivate as Total Commissioning by integrating the site cumulative, institutional knowledge related to site commissioning process into the agency’s current commissioning (see p. 59) Total Building Commissioning program (see p. 47) 6. Promote site commissioning to provide 2. Launch a pilot program by identifying design and commissioning professionals an planned facilities with diverse geographies, facility opportunity to understand the subject matter (see types, and project delivery methods, and adjusting p. 57) the graduated roll-out time line (see p. 56) 7. Reevaluate while remaining flexible by learning 3. Allocate resources for process development from successes and failures, to foster the success that support personnel, digital tool development of this brand new industry (see p. 56) and management, and communications (see p. 57) OPEN QUESTIONS

The following questions are for GSA’s consideration while refining and implementing the agency’s site commissioning process: • What type of database or other digital interface would most effectively be deployed to support the adaptive feedback loop?

• Is there a benefit to accessible, real-time data?

• How would design, construction, and management team members gain information access and data entry training for the adaptive feedback loop?

• Should site performance data and/or findings be made available to the public, since they will be derived with taxpayer dollars?

• Should site commissioning-related innovation be encouraged and / or rewarded?

Image credit: courtesy of Millicent Harvey 65 7. APPENDICES

Image credit: Andropogon Associates

66 A | WHITE PAPER CONTRIBUTORS

PROJECT SPONSOR Christian Gabriel, RLA, ASLA** GSA, National Design Director for Landscape Architecture

RESEARCH TEAM José Almiñana, PLA, FASLA, LEED AP Andropogon Associates, Principal Thomas Amoroso, PLA, ASLA Andropogon Associates, Principal Emily McCoy, PLA, ASLA, SITES AP Andropogon Associates, Associate Principal + Director of Integrative Research Lauren Mandel, PLA, ASLA Andropogon Associates, Landscape Architect + Researcher, Principal Author Lori Aument Marketing Lead, Editor Loretta Desvernine Senior Graphic Designer

GENERAL ADVISORY GROUP David Insinga, AIA GSA, Director, Design Excellence + Chief Architect Don Horn, FAIA, LEED Fellow GSA, Deputy Director, Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings Frank Giblin, APA GSA, Director, Urban Development Lance Davis, AIA, LEED Fellow** GSA, Sustainability Architect Martin Weiland, P.E.** GSA, Chief of Staff, Facility Management Maureen Alonso, PMP GSA, Regional Horticultural Lead National Capital Region Natalie Huber, P.E. GSA, Chief Engineer Ray Mims US Botanic Garden, Conservation + Sustainability Manager Robert Goo EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans + Watersheds Rudy Schuster, PhD USGS, Branch Chief, Social + Economic Analysis, Ecosystem Service Valuation Sean Garrett, AIA GSA Central Office, Enclosures + Envelopes Specialist Steve Hilburger USGS, Ecosystems Mission Area Wildlife Program Manager

COMMISSIONING ADVISORY GROUP Ravi Maniktala, P.E., LEED AP, CxA, M.E. Group, President / Forte Building Science, Founder HBDP* Scott Kelly, AIA, LEED Fellow, CPHC* ReVision Architecture, Co-Founder + Principal-in-Charge Thomas King, P.E.* CCG Facilities Integration Inc., Director of Commissioning

* = white paper section reviewer ** = white paper reviewer

67 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION + STEWARDSHIP WORKING GROUPS

WATER Brian Vinchesi, LEED AP, EIT, CID, CIC, Irrigation Consulting, Inc. CLIA, CGIA, CWM-L Dave B. Arscott, PhD Stroud Water Research Center Franco Montalto, PhD, P.E. Drexel University, Department of Civil, Architectural + Environmental Engineering / The Sustainable Water Resources Engineering Laboratory at Drexel University Howard Neukrug, P.E., BCEE, University of Pennsylvania Hon.D.WRE Jane Bacchieri City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services Michele Adams, P.E., LEED AP Meliora Design Pam Emerson City of Seattle, Office of Sustainability + Environment Paul Kephart, ASLA Rana Creek Robert G. Traver, PhD Villanova University, Department of Civil + Environmental Engineering / Villanova Urban Stormwater Partnership Robert Goo U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans + Watersheds Russell Clark GSA Stephen Benz, P.E., LEED Fellow, Hon. SITEGreen Solutions, LLC ASLA Thomas Price, P.E.* Conservation Design Forum

SOIL Andrew N. Sharpley, PhD Soil Science Society of America Barrett Kays, PhD, CPSS, LSS, PLA, Landis, PLLC FASLA* Charlie Miller, P.E. Roofmeadow Claudia West North Creek Nurseries David Lindbo, PhD USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service / North Carolina State University Eric Kramer, ASLA Reed Hilderbrand James Urban, FASLA The Office of James Urban, FASLA / Urban Trees + Soils Paul Mankiewicz, PhD The Gaia Institute Sjoerd Willem Duiker, PhD, CCA The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Plant Science Terry Stancill Stancill’s Inc. Tim Craul, CPSSc Craul Land Scientists

VEGETATION Anne Sharp North Creek Nurseries Anthony S. Aiello Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania Chris Winters, RLA ARC Studios Inc. Craig Ruppert Ruppert Landscape Darren Destefano* GSA, Public Buildings Service Gary Krupnick, PhD Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Plant Conservation Unit James Sottilo, ISA Ecological Landscape Management Larry Weaner Larry Weaner Landscape Associates Lisa Cowan, PLA, ASLA StudioVerde

68 Mark Richardson New England Wildflower Society Maureen Alonso, PMP* GSA, Landscape Management and Design Program Nina Bassuk, PhD Cornell University, College of Agricultural + Life Sciences, School of Integrative Plant Science Ray Mims U.S. Botanic Garden Steve Windhager, PhD* The Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Thomas Rainer, PLA Rhodeside + Harwell

MATERIALS Christopher Anderson Skanska USA Civil West Dana Pomeroy, AIA, DBIA, LEED The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company David Yocca, FASLA, AICP, LEED AP Conservation Design Forum Don Horn, FAIA, LEED Fellow GSA, Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings E. Timothy Marshall, FASLA ETM Associates, LLC H. Jay Enck CxAP, HBDP, BEAP, LEED Commissioning and Green Building Solutions, Inc. Fellow Jason Wirick Phipps Center for Sustainable Landscapes Jeffrey Bruce, FASLA, ASIC, LEED, Jeffrey L. Bruce + Company LLC GRP* Kevin Repasky Hanover Architectural Products Lamonte John, AIA GSA Maribeth DeLorenzo Urban Sustainability Administration, Department of Energy + Environment Martin Weiland, P.E. GSA Meg Calkins, ASLA, LEED AP Ball State University / Sustainable SITES Initiative Rob Kistler, AIA, NCARB Façade Group Sean Garrett, AIA GSA, Office of Design + Construction

HABITAT Ari Novy, PhD U.S. Botanic Garden Donald J. Leopold, PhD SUNY-ESF, Department of Environmental + Forest Biology Jared Rosenbaum Wild Ridge Plants John Hart Asher Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center / The University of Texas at Austin, School of Architecture Keith Bowers, FASLA, RLA, PWS* Biohabitats Keith Russell Audubon Pennsylvania Laurie Davies Adams Pollinator Partnership Leslie Sauer Andropogon Associates (emeritus) Lisa Alexander Audubon Naturalist Society Steven D. Frank, PhD North Carolina State University, Entomology Program Steve Hilburger U.S. Geologic Survey Steven Apfelbaum, M.S. Applied Ecological Services Steven Hendel, PhD Rutgers University, School of Environmental + Biological Sciences / Harvard University, Graduate School of Design / Ecological Restoration journal

HUMAN HEALTH + WELL BEING Adrian Benepe* The Trust for Public Lands Alicia Coleman University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Regional Planning Barbara Deutsch, FASLA Landscape Architecture Foundation Beth Ziebarth Smithsonian Institution, Accessibility Program

69 Claire Latané, ASLA Mia Lehrer + Associates Dan Guilbeault Department of Energy + Environment, Sustainability + Equity Branch Deborah Marton New York Restoration Project Frank Giblin, APA GSA Lisanne Brown, PhD, MPH Louisiana Public Health Institute Leann Andrews, RLA, ASLA, SEED University of Washington, Department of Landscape Architecture Mario Cambardella, PLA City of Atlanta, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability Robin Moore, Hon. ASLA Natural Learning Initiative / North Carolina State University, Department of Landscape Architecture

CLIMATE Alex Felson, PhD Yale University, School of Forestry + Environmental Studies / Yale University, School of Architecture / Urban Ecology + Design Laboratory A.R. Ann Kosmal, FAIA, LEED AP GSA BD+C, CPHC, PDC Bill Updike Department of Energy + Environment, Green Building + Climate Branch Debra Guenther, FASLA, LEED AP BD+C* Mithūn Ignacio Bunster-Ossa, FASLA AECOM Jairo H. Garcia, PhD City of Atlanta, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability Lara J. Hansen, PhD EcoAdapt Liz Guthrie, ASLA, LEED Green Assoc. 100 Resilient Cities Parker Liautaud U.S. Department of Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy Richard Pouyat USDA Forest Service Rudy Schuster, PhD U.S. Geologic Survey

Image credit: Nic Lehoux 70 B | INDUSTRY EXPERT INPUT

INDUSTRY EXPERT SELECTION PROCESS survey program, SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey. After conducting a literature review, the white paper’s com). The research team then reviewed and analyzed research team and GSA project sponsor identified 141 the data further to extract the most significant trends industry thought leaders that hold expertise related to and discrepancies between answers within each each of the Site Commissioning Attribute categories: working group survey. Graphs and charts were created Water, Soil, Vegetation, Materials, Habitat, Human during this analysis and used to formulate discussion Health and Well-Being, and Climate. Each of these questions for each working group conference call individuals was approved by GSA, and then invited (see “Interview Methods” below). A selection of these via email to join a specific “design, construction, and graphs and charts appear in this appendix. stewardship working group.” Eighty-nine participants (63% of those initially invited) joined the working INTERVIEW METHODS groups, each of which consisted of 11 to 15 members. Upon completion of the surveys, the research team Each working group contained representatives from and GSA project sponsor conducted and recorded governmental organizations, non-governmental semi-structured group interviews, via conference organizations, academic institutions, and professional call, with each working group. These 90-minute companies, in order to capture a representative cross- discussions (plus one additional 60-minute call with section of stakeholder input for each subject area. the Materials group due to low attendance during the scheduled meeting) served to review and validate SURVEY METHODS survey result findings and facilitate discussion The research team developed and administered an between experts. Questions focused on the value of online survey specific to each working group, which commissioning, optimizing goals, overcoming barriers, was completed by all 89 members. The survey goals material sourcing, performance monitoring, cross- were to: disciplinary analysis, and feedback loops. • Confirm which metrics are most critical in evaluating site performance through a Not all working group members were available to or commissioning process interested in participating in the calls, and so those • Identify hurdles within the design-construction- who did not attend were sent the presentation and management process that cause site performance discussion questions from each conference call and to diverge from intended goals offered the opportunity to provide responses via email. • Gain exposure to unfamiliar nuances of Comments made during the calls and in follow-up commissioning issues and relevant processes emails were manually analyzed and summarized by • Gauge multi-industry support for site the research team. The following number of working commissioning group members participated in each group interview:

Questions within each survey addressed: 1) general Working Group Membership Group Interview performance goals; 2) technical performance goals; 3) (No.) Participation (No.) monitoring methods; 4) performance evaluation; and 5) Water 13 6 (46%) survey wrap-up (to solicit information about the survey Soil 11 8 (73%) participant’s general experience, level of support for Vegetation 15 11 (73%) GSA’s adoption of a site commissioning process, and willingness to participate in follow-up communication). Materials 14 11 (79%) Questions within the first four categories were Habitat 13 9 (69%) discipline-specific, while the remaining questions Human Health 12 7 (58%) were identical across all surveys. These questions & Well-Being that spanned surveys were designed to solicit broad, Climate 11 6 (55%) multi-disciplinary feedback with a larger sample size Total 89 58 (65%) than any individual survey, and thus, more statistically significant results. By contrast, discipline-specific questions were designed to solicit in-depth responses aimed at tapping into each participant’s expertise. In order of declining frequency, questions were asked as multiple choice, short answer, and ranking. Consequently, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Results were analyzed automatically by the online 71 Opposite: Working group survey participants by sector INDUSTRY EXPERT SELECTION PROCESS After conducting a literature review, the white paper’s research team and GSA project sponsor identified 141 industry thought leaders that hold expertise related to each of the Site Commissioning Attribute categories: Water, Soil, Vegetation, Materials, Habitat, Human Health and Well-Being, and Climate. Each of these individuals was approved by GSA, and then invited via email to join a specific “design, construction, and stewardship working group.” Eighty-nine participants (63% of those initially invited) joined the working groups, each of which consisted of 11 to 15 members. Each working group contained representatives from governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and professional companies, in order to capture a representative cross- section of stakeholder input for each subject area.

SURVEY METHODS The research team developed and administered an online survey specific to each working group, which was completed by all 89 members. The survey goals were to: • Confirm which metrics are most critical in evaluating site performance through a commissioning process • Identify hurdles within the design-construction- management process that cause site performance to diverge from intended goals • Gain exposure to unfamiliar nuances of commissioning issues and relevant processes • Gauge multi-industry support for site commissioning

Questions within each survey addressed: 1) general performance goals; 2) technical performance goals; 3) monitoring methods; 4) performance evaluation; and 5) survey wrap-up (to solicit information about the survey participant’s general experience, level of support for GSA’s adoption of a site commissioning process, and willingness to participate in follow-up communication). Questions within the first four categories were discipline-specific, while the remaining questions were identical across all surveys. These questions that spanned surveys were designed to solicit broad, multi-disciplinary feedback with a larger sample size than any individual survey, and thus, more statistically significant results. By contrast, discipline-specific questions were designed to solicit in-depth responses aimed at tapping into each participant’s expertise. In order of declining frequency, questions were asked as multiple choice, short answer, and ranking. Consequently, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Results were analyzed automatically by the online 72 RESULTS: WATER WORKING GROUP transfer. Participants noted that cumulative change The Water Working Group survey indicated that when orders during construction can jeopardize system implementing high-performance, total water systems performance, and that high-performance systems that within a facility, “client interest” is the most significant aren’t installed correctly experience an increased risk barrier to overcome during a facility’s planning / of abandonment. Similarly, maintenance personnel pre-design phase, while a lack of “knowledge, training, that don’t understand the system’s inner-workings may or integration” poses the greatest challenge during abandon the system (e.g. complex irrigation program) construction through post-warranty maintenance. The for a simpler, although mush less efficient solution. group expressed that these obstacles are important to overcome due to certain cost-benefit aspects of Recommended Solutions high-performance water systems, most notably: 1) • Tailor each facility’s performance goals to Ecological, flood, landslide, and drought resilience; accommodate regional variability in water needs and 2) Irrigation reduction. When monitoring high- • Acknowledge savings that can result from using performance systems and balancing cost, accuracy total-water features (e.g. constructed wetland) to and usefulness, 83% of survey participants reported achieve multiple goals that water use is the easiest parameter to measure, • Increase communication between landscape while water quality was listed as most difficult. One architect, civil engineer, and MEP engineer member predicted that water quality monitoring will • Engage site manager and maintenance personnel become easier over time, and presumably more throughout the design process affordable, as technology improves. • Coordinate the site’s soils and irrigation strategies • Require a high-performance total water system Interview participants acknowledged the complexities maintenance plan within the contract documents of total water systems and largely attributed • Solicit highly-trained installation contractors the obstacles surrounding their implementation • Advocate for local regulations that incentivize and long-term performance to poor knowledge green stormwater infrastructure

Data source: Water Working Group survey, administered by Andropogon Associates (n = 13) 73 RESULTS: SOIL WORKING GROUP 2) Poor understanding of the performative services According to the survey participants’ experience, that healthy soil systems provide; and 3) Lack of the most commonly occurring obstacle to high- construction standards related to soil. Part of this performance soil system implementation involves disconnect may result from the traditional placement failing to further or reinforce a facility’s soil of soil management plan requirements in “Division 32 management plan during construction, which occurs - Exterior Improvements” of the specifications, which 32% of the time. The results also indicated that is primarily read by the landscape contractor, but construction activities overly compact the soil 30% may not be reviewed by other trades who drive heavy of the time, and a soil management plan is not machinery on the construction site. prepared during design 29% of the time. Interview comments stressed that soil compaction and/or a Recommended Solutions lack of soil management planning can significantly • Map existing site hydrology and soil drainage by impact a facility’s long-term stormwater management redoximorphic features before construction capabilities, plant performance, irrigation demand, • Preserve and/or restore existing, native soil profile and habitat value. In fact, a significant number of whenever possible and appropriate survey participants reported that a site commissioning • Require the preparation, implementation, and process for high-performance soil systems would enforcement of a soil management plan positively impact a facility’s environmental (88%), • Include the soil management plan requirement social (64%), and financial performance (73%). in “Division 01 - General Requirements” of the Additionally, multiple participants noted the specifications so trades beyond the landscape performance and financial value of protecting and/ contractor read the information or restoring the existing, native soil profile whenever • Tailor soil specifications to meet performance possible and appropriate to the site’s intended use, as goals opposed to importing natural or engineered soils. • Allow for material substitutions / flexibility through performance requirements in specifications Problems related to construction, as articulated during • Enforce soil-related rules, regulations, and metrics the interview, can be largely attributed to a lack of: • Anticipate changing performance over time 1) Communication between the construction trades;

Data source: Soil Working Group survey, administered by Andropogon Associates (n = 11) 74 RESULTS: VEGETATION WORKING GROUP problems arise due to a lack of personnel knowledge The survey data show that overwhelmingly, design and and training. Sometimes this is paired with more maintenance are the critical moments for influencing maintenance effort (i.e. mowing, pruning) than needed. long-term vegetated system performance. Selecting native or adapted, site-appropriate plant species Recommended Solutions during the design phase is critical to a facility’s ability • Solicit knowledgeable designers, construction to provide native pollinator habitat, provide bird habitat, sub-contractors, and site management personnel and minimize long-term maintenance costs according • Engage the site manager and/or site management to 89%, 86%, and 61% of survey participants, personnel throughout the design process respectively. During submittals and construction, • Require native or adapted, site-appropriate plants however, the data show that contract growing • Utilize conservation and restoration ecology requirements are often not considered or followed, and principles whenever possible, and incorporate that plant species, sizes, or spacing is often changed, each site’s existing, native seed bank into the thereby implementing a planting design that differs design when possible from what was intended. After construction, a lack of • Ensure the owner and landscape architect share knowledge and training poses barriers to vegetated expectations of anticipated maintenance effort system performance 50% of the time during a project’s • Factor the true cost of early-stage management pre-warranty and post-warranty maintenance phases. (years 1-2) into facility’s capital budget Problems may be exacerbated when a facility’s • Factor the true cost of long-term management installation and management personnel differ. (years 3+) into facility’s operational budget • Hold a pre-bid contractor’s meeting to convey the Interview participants noted that problems during the design intent and performance expectations design phase often result when landscape architects • Move contract growing submittal requirement are not knowledgeable about high-performance earlier in the submittals process vegetated systems, not cognizant of plant availability, • Ensure best practices during soil preparation and or not in-tune with the owner’s level of maintenance planting expectations. At the same time, the owner often needs • Understand that plant species dominance and to be educated about true maintenance costs by the relationships change over time landscape architect and management personnel, • Collect monitoring data in centralized, real-time during the design phase. Participants noted that owner database buy-in is essential to a vegetated system’s success, • Leverage site commissioning to ensure vegetated and that more maintenance is generally required system performance at construction completion during the first two years of establishment (termed (i.e. project turnover) “early stage management”) compared to the extended • Retain the designer for periodic, post-construction system’s life (termed “long-term management”). During site visits to validate design intent the maintenance, or management, phases, most

Data source: Vegetation Working Group survey, administered by Andropogon Associates (n = 14) 75 RESULTS: MATERIALS WORKING GROUP build-to-sell). The survey found that “durability” is the most important performance goal for high-performance material Recommended Solutions systems, and yet, “material durability and material life- • Pursue inclusive project delivery processes in cycle value” are commonly overlooked from design which owner, designer, contractor, maintenance through maintenance. Compounding the problem and operations personnel, and commissioning is a high rate of material and system alteration that agent understand performance goals and work occurs 63% of the time during submittals and 52% of collaboratively, starting as early as possible the time during construction (according to the survey • Clearly articulate project goals and budgets participants’ experience), which can impact intended early in design to avoid value engineering that material and system performance. Furthermore, negatively impacts performance materials or systems are jeopardized due to improper • Include life-cycle and accurately projected construction activities 58% of the time. maintenance costs in material selection process • Anticipate type and level of use and let owner Core to these problems, as articulated during the determine maintenance effort upfront group’s two interviews, are: 1) The added upfront • Encourage designer-manufacturer communication cost of durable, high-value products; 2) A lack of regarding performance goals, early during design contractor and sub-contractor training related to • Build performance expectations and under- high-performance materials and systems; and 3) performance consequences into specifications Low owner, designer, contractor, and site manager • Emphasize performance requirements of suitable understanding of how material and system selection, substitutions in specifications and the quality of their installation and maintenance, • Include sub-contractor pre-qualification and impact long-term system performance. As a result, pre-construction requirements in specifications substitutions are common for the benefit of lowering and submittals upfront costs, at the expense of material and system • Leverage site commissioning process to increase performance throughout the facility’s life-cycle. This performance feedback and general communication scenario is particularly problematic and costly for between owners, designers, operations and build-to-own facilities, like those of GSA, because the maintenance personnel, and manufacturers owner is invested for the long-haul (as opposed to

Data source: Materials Working Group survey, administered by Andropogon Associates (n = 14) 76 RESULTS: HABITAT WORKING GROUP birds, is equally important to ecosystem integrity. Participants agreed that the use of native plants is very important in achieving multiple habitat Recommended Solutions performance goals, including the support of “native • Consider habitat scale and on/off-site connectivity animal health at multiple trophic levels” and “system opportunities when selecting each facility’s resilience.” The survey and interview data indicated location that site selection, construction, and maintenance • Tailor each facility’s performance goals to prioritize are the critical moments for influencing these and regional habitat needs other measures of habitat performance. However, in • Conserve and/or restore existing habitat and water the group’s experience, habitat goals are jeopardized systems whenever possible due to improper construction activities and improper • Include scientists (e.g. ecologist, biologist, maintenance activities 71% and 77% of the time, geomorphologist) as needed, and knowledgeable respectively. landscape architects on the facility’s design team • Expand pollinator habitat typology to include Interview participants noted that some of the most appropriate woodland and scrub-shrub habitats, common obstacles during construction are soil which also serve other types of indigenous compaction, the availability of native seed and plant species material (particularly local ecotypes), plant species • Establish sequenced performance metrics, or substitutions, plant size and spacing alterations, trajectories, rather than focusing on optimization and planting within appropriate seasonal windows. immediately after construction The data suggest that knowledge and training pose • Incorporate monitoring costs into facility’s significant barriers to habitat performance during the operational budget facility’s pre-warranty and post-warranty maintenance • Require baseline habitat assessments, including phases. Additionally, GSA, as an institution, has landscape ecology studies, soil and hydrologic prioritized pollinator habitat (which is typically analysis, along with flora and fauna surveys expressed as meadow) due to an executive order • Provide interpretive signage that requires the provision of pollinator habitat at • Plan and allow for plant community succession federal facilities. Several participants objected to this • Employ maintenance personnel knowledgeable in prioritization, noting that habitat needs vary by region, wildlife and ecological systems and that high-quality habitat for other organisms, • Practice adaptive management ranging from soil microorganisms to mammals and

Data source: Habitat Working Group survey, administered by Andropogon Associates (n = 13) 77 RESULTS: HUMAN HEALTH & WELL-BEING / landscape architecture / engineering team. WORKING GROUP Additionally, the goals should function as the basis of The survey found that “views of vegetation from accountability in performance from a facility’s design indoors” and “access to outdoor space” are the through post-warranty maintenance phase. most highly influential variables to human health and well-being in the workplace. When facilities fail to Recommended Solutions meet these and other human health and well-being • Leverage site commissioning to encourage owner goals, survey participants reported that “increased investment in physical spaces that are designed absenteeism and worker health problems” pose the to decrease worker absenteeism, reduce health greatest financial risk to employers. According to the problems, and enhance worker performance survey, the most significant barriers to implementing • Identify simple, measurable goals that can be systems that support these human health and well- monitored by non-scientists being performance goals are “client interest,” during • Focus on quantitative metrics to prove value a facility’s planning / pre-design phase, and lack of • Hold regular, interdisciplinary team meetings “knowledge, training, or integration,” during every other throughout the design process project phase (except for construction) through post- • Design above the baseline (ADA-compliance) warranty maintenance. through a “human-centered design” approach • Document performance goals related to specific Several working group members noted that these design elements to protect elements and goals problems frequently result when stakeholder from value engineering engagement is overlooked and clear human health • Bring attention to the value of each human space and well-being goals are not established early enough • Consider expanding GSA’s existing indoor user in a facility’s planning process. When performance satisfaction surveys to the outdoors, as an goals are effectively distilled and documented, informative qualitative metric achieving them may require interdisciplinary coordination, particularly between the architecture

Data source: Human Health & Well-Being Working Group survey, administered by Andropogon Associates (n = 12) 78 RESULTS: CLIMATE WORKING GROUP the survey data suggested that only a researcher or The survey data revealed strong agreement between commissioning professional is capable of assessing working group members that facility planning, design, performance data and adjusting a maintenance construction, and operations and maintenance can regime related to carbon sequestration, vegetation and most feasibly be used to address threats of climate soil system resiliency, and prevalence of pests and change through “adaptation.” In particular, adaptation disease, which can be challenging within a facility’s to wildfire, heat-related mortality, river and coastal budgetary realities. flooding, extreme weather events, and salt water intrusion. Multiple survey responses and interview Recommended Solutions comments noted that one of site commissioning’s • Focus on climate change adaptation during design greatest potential values would be to reduce facility • Demonstrate important adaptations for each owners’ and occupants’ risk and vulnerability region associated with these effects of climate change. • Accommodate anticipated environmental stress Although, “client interest” was found to pose one of the and system performance fluctuations into system most significant barriers to the implementation of high- design and operations performance systems that support climate issues. • Carefully cite buildings to manage facility’s risk • Embed automated monitoring systems into sites When considering adaptation to climate change, • Involve maintenance personnel in site monitoring (particularly for facilities like ports of entry, which • Use each facility to build knowledge about may expand but will not move) many group members performance changes in each system over time, agreed that facilities should be planned, designed, so performance is more predictable on future and built to withstand 50 - 100 years of climate- projects related stresses and extremes. They recognize that • Deconstruct assumptions about building / site this is difficult, though, given the unpredictability of integration and consider innovative technologies extreme weather events and the propensity for site • Use commissioning to enhance site adaptiveness system performance to change over time. Lastly to climate change related stresses

Data source: Climate Working Group survey, administered by Andropogon Associates (n = 10) 79 C | SITES CREDITS EMBEDDED WITHIN SITE COMMISSIONING

Relevant Prerequisites + Credits Value

Section 1: SITE CONTEXT N/A

Section 2: PRE-DESIGN ASSESSMENT + PLANNING Pre-Design Prerequisite 2.1: Use an integrative design process Required Pre-Design Prerequisite 2.2: Conduct a pre-design site assessment Required Pre-Design Prerequisite 2.3: Designate and communicate Vegetation and Soil Protection Zones Required Pre-Design Credit 2.4: Engage users and stakeholders 3 points

Section 3: SITE DESIGN—Water N/A

Section 4: SITE DESIGN—Soil + Vegetation Soil+Veg Prerequisite 4.1: Create and communicate a soil management plan Required Soil+Veg Prerequisite 4.2: Control and manage invasive plants Required Soil+Veg Prerequisite 4.3: Use appropriate plants Required

Section 5: SITE DESIGN—Materials Selection N/A

Section 6: SITE DESIGN—Human Health + Well-Being N/A

Section 7: CONSTRUCTION Construction Prerequisite 7.3: Restore soils disturbed during construction Required

Section 8: OPERATIONS + MAINTENANCE O+M Prerequisite 8.1: Plan for sustainable site maintenance Required O+M Credit 8.4: Minimize pesticide and fertilizer use 4 - 5 points

Section 9: EDUCATION + PERFORMANCE MONITORING Education Credit 9.1: Promote sustainability awareness and education 3 - 4 points Education Credit 9.3: Plan to monitor and report site performance 4 points

Section 10: INNOVATION OR EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE N/A

In 2016, GSA adopted the Sustainable SITES Initiative (SITES) for all new construction and major redevelopments by embedding the requirement in its PBS-P100 (see Project Background, p. 5). SITES contains prerequisites, which must be completed to gain SITES-certification, and credits, which can be selectively earned to contribute to varying certification levels. Eight of these prerequisites and four credits (for a maximum total of 16 points) are embedded within the site commissioning processes outlined in this white paper. These prerequisites and credits can guide the OPR development, help shape the project scope, and integrate seamlessly into the site commissioning process (see Integration into GSA’s Current building commissioning process, p. 45).

80 D | SAMPLE SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR SITE COMMISSIONING AGENTS

Site Commissioning Agent (SCxA) Responsibilities

1. The SCxA is the Owner’s commissioning consultant and a member of the Commissioning Team. The SCxA advises the Owner and Commissioning Team on issues involving the site commissioning process and its intended results. The SCxA direct the site commissioning process in accordance with the project commissioning specifications to provide long-term performance and maintainability of the systems included in the scope of work.¬

2. The SCxA is authorized and obligated to advise the Owner of issues involving the design, construction materials, construction methods, system start up, testing protocols, data analysis, adjusting and balancing, and other activities that are required to maximize system performance and maintainability.

3. The SCxA is authorized and obligated to make recommendations to the Owner regarding the acceptance, modification, rejection of materials (with agreement by the Design Team), construction procedures, schedules, tests, reports or other items pertaining to the systems within the site commissioning scope of work.

4. The SCxA is not authorized to change contract documents, schedules, costs, or scopes of work for any parties contracted on the project. The SCxA is not empowered to direct any contractor, subcontractor or person on the project to make required changes in the work, materials used, or construction methods utilized in completing their scope of work. Directives for corrective action will come through the contract chain of command as dictated by the contracts for the project.

Site Commissioning Activities

1. Planning / Pre-Design Phase

a. Attend a pre-commissioning meeting with the Owner, Commissioning Team, and Design Team to review the commissioning process. b. Maintain and update a commissioning issues log. c. Review the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) document and the current Basis of Design (BOD) document for consistency for elements related to the project’s site systems and integrated site-building systems. d. Direct and document site commissioning meeting(s) with the Owner and site managers. e. Prepare site system and integrated site-building system portions of the Preliminary Commissioning Plan, including standard pre-functional checklists. f. Identify potential subject matter expertise (i.e. soils, hydrology, ecology etc.) based on the project’s OPR goals. g. Assist the Owner in development of commissioning budget. h. Review feasibility and design studies related to site commissioning goals and provide feedback to the Commissioning Team, Design Team, and Owner.

2. Design Phase

a. Attend design meetings as requested by the Owner. b. Review drawings and specifications related to the site commissioning scope of the project at the Schematic Design, Design Development, and Construction Documentation submissions and provide feedback to the Design Team and Owner. Reviews shall occur at interim and final submissions.

81 c. Determine if the drawings and specifications provide sufficient instrumentation, test and access ports, and specified responsibility in order to provide a complete, commissionable project. d. Update and refine the site systems and integrated site-building system-specific portions of the project’s commissioning plan and pre-functional checklist to describe the organization and activities of the Commissioning Team. This plan shall describe responsibilities, lines of communication, reports and specific commissioning activities, schedules, and reports. e. Develop site commissioning specification language for Division 1. f. Review the project’s Adaptive Management Plan with the Owner and contractor who will manage the site.

3. Construction Phase

a. Plan Review: The Design Team and General Contractor shall forward copies of plans, specifications and submittals for review by the SCxA for possible conflicts, site deficiencies, ability to be tested and balanced, ability to be commissioned and coordination between disciplines. b. Schedules: Assist the Commissioning Team and General Contractor in developing commissioning schedules and checklists (see Site Commissioning Metrics Chart, p. 41) c. Field Installation Verification (FIV): Provide construction FIV for site systems and integrated site-building systems, and a pre-functional check sheet matrix (see Site Commissioning Metrics Chart, p. 41). Submit any concerns or deficiencies through a daily field report and the commissioning issues log. d. Commissioning Meetings: Attend on-site commissioning meetings as required to complete and coordinate the site commissioning process. e. Control Point to Point Tests: The startup verification report tests include complete point-to-point tests of automatic control systems and electronic site management systems (e.g. irrigation and water harvesting systems). Prior to this test, the controls contractor shall complete the installation and conduct a self-test and calibration of each point on the system. A team consisting of the SCxA, the controls contractor and possibly an Owners representative shall verify the system point-to-point test. Each point shall be verified as to its operational status and correct mapping, and recorded on the startup verification report test form. These point-to-point tests may be concurrent with parties performing the point to point verification together. f. Test & Balance verification: Work with the TAB firm to verify that the work is performed using the methodology described in the procedural standard (e.g. NIST, ASTM) and is in line with the design intent. The TAB firm must provide current calibration certificates for instrumentation used in the TAB work. g. Functional Performance Tests (FPT): Develop FPT required to be performed with the responsible contractor who provided the site being tested for systems included in the scope of work. The contractor shall demonstrate under CxA direction to verify that the site materials and installation are compliant with the design. h. Preliminary O&M Manuals: Each contractor and vendor must submit maintenance manuals early in the construction process (directly following approval of submittals). These documents are required to develop commissioning procedures for FPT tests. i. Final O&M Manuals and As-Built Drawings: Upon the completion of startup/functional testing verification report tests, O&M manuals and As Built Drawings shall be finalized to “As Built” condition and supplied to the GC. These manuals shall be reviewed by the CxA in conjunction with the A/E firms for use in the Owner training seminar. j. Owner Training: This training session shall be presented by the design professionals, installing contractors, and equipment suppliers. The CxA shall participate. k. Final Commissioning Report: Provide the site system and integrated site-building system portions of a final commissioning report to the Commissioning Team, which shall include commissioning communication, test results, FIV check sheets, and FPT reports.

82 4. Post-Construction Phase

a. Review the project’s Adaptive Management Plan with the Owner and contractor who will manage the site. b. Post Occupancy Performance Verification: Coordinate and schedule the post occupancy performance verification activities for the site. These tests will be a measure of performance during the occupied period. Review the testing results that are provided by the management personnel who are responsible for maintaining the systems. At the completion of post occupancy tests, publish a site commissioning report addendum to document the performance verification tests. c. Cost Events: If multiple tests prove to be failures (e.g. the same test fails more than once), and the contractor fails to provide proper corrective measures thus causing added testing attempts, then the contractor will incur the added time as a cost event charge for retesting of the system. d. Prepare the site system and site-building system-specific portions of the final commissioning report to the Commissioning Team, for submission to the Owner. e. Participate in a lessons learned meeting with the Owner. f. Conduct Long-Term Management contractor training.

5. Long-Term Phase

a. Recommission site on the building commissioning schedule, every 3 to 5 years. b. Prepare the site system and site-building system-specific portions of the final commissioning report to the Commissioning Team, for submission to the Owner. c. Conduct owner and management personnel re-training as needed.

83 E | SAMPLE FIELD OBSERVATION FORM - BIRDS

Source: National Parks Association of NSW 84 SAMPLE FIELD OBSERVATION FORM - BIRDS

85 Source: National Parks Association of NSW SAMPLE FIELD OBSERVATION FORM - POLLINATORS

Source: National Parks Association of NSW 86 SAMPLE FIELD OBSERVATION FORM - INSECTS Bartram’s Mile – National Heat & Power Site Meadow Establishment Insect Order Richness (No. of Individuals)

Time: 3:05 PM ‐ 3:20 PM Temperature: 93°F, light wind from south 8/15/16 Plot A Plot B Plot C Scientific Name Common Name Blattodea Cockroaches and termites Coleoptera Beetles Dermaptera Earwigs Diptera Flies 5 4 5 Embiidina Webspinners Ephemeroptera Mayflies Hemiptera True bugs, cicadas, hoppers, aphids, allies Hymenoptera Ants, bees, wasps, sawflies 5 7 10 Lepidoptera Butterflies, moths 1 9 2 Mantodea Mantids Mecoptera Scorpionflies, hangingflies, allies Megaloptera Alderflies, dobsonflies, fishflies Microcoryphia Bristletails Neuroptera Antlions, owlflies, lacewings, mantidflies, allies Notoptera Rock crawlers Odonata Dragonflies, damselflies Orthoptera Grasshoppers, crickets, katydids Phasmida Walkingsticks Plecoptera Stoneflies Psocodea Barklice, booklice, parasitic lice Raphidioptera Snakeflies Siphonaptera Fleas Strepsiptera Twisted‐winged insects Thysanoptera Thrips Trichoptera Caddisflies Zoraptera Zorapterans Zygentoma Silverfish

87 Source: Andropogon Associates F | ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

ASHRAE, Standard 202-2013: Commissioning Process for Buildings and Systems - www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/bookstore/commissioning-essentials

Berkeley Lab, Measurement and Verification Portal - http://mnv.lbl.gov/keyMnVDocs/ipmvp

Building Commissioning Association - www.bcxa.org

Efficiency Valuation Organization - http://evo-world.org/en

GSA Commissioning Program - www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21064

GSA PBS-P100 - www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104821

GSA SF Tool, Landscaping Services - https://sftool.gov/greenprocurement/green-services/3/ landscaping-services

International Living Future Institute - http://living-future.org/lbc

Landscape Architecture Foundation - http://lafoundation.org

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) - www.usgbc.org/leed

National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide - www.wbdg.org/project/ buildingcomm.php

Project BudBurst - http://budburst.org/phenology_climatechange

Sustainable SITES Initiative - www.sustainablesites.org

The Economics of Biophilia - www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/reports/the-economics-of-biophilia/

USA National Phenology Network - https://www.usanpn.org/data/spring

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecoregions - www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregions

88 G | GLOSSARY

Adaptive management: iterative approach to improving operations and maintenance by systematically learning from past decisions and outcomes

Appropriate plant: species adapted to a project’s site conditions, climate, and design intent

Blackwater: water that contains the waste of humans, animals, or food

Climate: average weather within an area over a period of time

Climate mitigation: actions that reduce contributing factors of climate change

Climate adaptation: actions that minimize or prevent negative impacts of climate change

Climate regulation (global): maintaining the balance of atmospheric gases at historic levels, maintaining healthy air quality, and/or sequestering carbon

Climate regulation (site/local): maintaining local temperatures, precipitation levels, and humidity, through shading, evapotranspiration, and/or windbreaks

Commissioning (Cx): systematic process of assuring, by verification and documentation, that built systems perform in accordance with design intent and the owner’s operational needs

Commissioning agent (CxA): qualified member of the project team that plans, coordinates, and oversees the commissioning process, including functional performance testing and performance verification

Commissioning plan: living document that describes a facility’s commissioning process, including schedules, responsibilities, documentation requirements, and communication structures

Continuous commissioning: systematic process that relies upon regularly gathered or continuous feeds of data as part of an ongoing commissioning program for large, generally complex projects

Cultivar: sub-species of a straight plant species bred for a particular trait

Design-bid-build: project delivery method in which design services are provided, the project is bid by contractors, and then a contractor is awarded and provides construction services

Design-build: project delivery method in which a contractor provides both design and construction services

Ecoregion: ecologically-similar regions, as defined geographically by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ecosystem service: any positive, direct or indirect benefit that wildlife or ecosystems provides to people

Ecotype: genetically distinct geographic variety of a species that is adapted to local conditions

Early-stage management: intensive site maintenance during the first 2-3 years after construction, generally corresponding to the plant establishment period

Functional performance testing: evaluation of a built system’s function and operation relative to the OPR, based on direct observation and/or monitoring after completion of construction checklists

Greywater: domestic wastewater that does not contain the waste of humans, animals, or food

Integrated building/site systems: open- or closed-loop features that support one another for operation

Integrated project delivery (IPD): project delivery method that engages members of the project team throughout the entire process, who traditionally occupy one segment of the process

International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP): an internationally- recognized compilation of best practices protocol for verifying energy and water efficiency and cost savings

89 Landscape: see Site

Landscape performance: a measure of the effectiveness with which landscape solutions fulfill their intended purpose and contribute to sustainability1

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED): is a sustainability rating system for buildings, used by designers and consultants, developed and administered by the U.S. Green Building Council

Long-term management: less intensive site maintenance after a project’s 2-3 year early-stage management period

Native plant: species that naturally occurs with a project site’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecoregion Level III designation

Owner’s project requirements (OPR): documented performance outcomes, established by a project’s owner, that form the basis from which design, construction, acceptance and operational decisions are made during the commissioning process

PBS-P100: GSA Public Building Service’s facility standards for the Public Buildings Service, which establishes design standards for the agency’s new buildings and renovations

Performance metric: measurement type that provides a means for quantifying or qualifying performance

Recommissioning: systematic process that involves periodic, functional performance monitoring and evaluation of a built project that was previously commissioned during construction or substantial completion

Redoximorphic features: soil discoloration indicating that the soil has been saturated and anaerobic

Retro-commissioning: systematic process that involves diagnostic and functional performance monitoring, generally of an older project, that occurs once to trouble-shoot a problem or periodically to establish a commissioning program

Total building commissioning: systematic process that involves testing and verifying that all building systems perform in accordance with design intent and OPR, from design to at least one year post-occupancy

Triple bottom line: accounting framework that assumes the true cost of doing business can be accurately understood only when social, environmental, and economic performance is measured

Site: area within the defined boundaries of a design-construction project that includes all vegetated and non-vegetated areas beyond the building extents

Site Commissioning (SCx): systematic process of assuring, by verification and documentation, that built site systems perform in accordance with design intent and the owner’s operational needs

Site Commissioning Agent (SCxA): qualified sub-consultant to or employee of the CxA that plans, coordinates, and oversees the commissioning process related to a facility’s site

Stormwater: rainwater or snow melt

Sustainable SITES Initiative (SITES): point-based rating system used by designers, planners, and policy makers to develop sustainable landscapes that was created by the American Society of Landscape Architects, The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at The University of Texas at Austin, and the U.S. Botanic Garden, and is administered by Green Business Certification Inc.

Total water: all potable and collected water that is brought to or originates on a facility’s site

Wastewater: water that has been used for domestic or industrial purposes and contains dissolved or suspended waste materials

Zero-lot-line: form of development in which the building(s) extend to or very close to the property line

1 Landscape Architecture Foundation (2017)

90 H | REFERENCES

Alonso, Maureen. Personal interview. 8 December 2016. Alonso, Maureen. Personal interview. 8 December 2017. BOMA. Benchmarking Reports. Experience Exchange Report (EER). BOMA International. Released July 2010. “Building Commissioning Philosophy.” General Services Administration, 21 March 2016, https://www.gsa.gov/ portal/category/21596. Accessed 9 January 2017. “Building Commissioning: Recommended Guidelines, 2nd Edition.” National Association of State Facilities Administrators, 2012, http://des.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/documents/Facilities/Energy Commissioning/Commissioning_FINAL_2nd_Edition_Doc_2012.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2017. Climate Working Group (see Appendix A). Group interview. 14 April 2017. Commissioning Advisory Group (see Appendix A). Group interview. 11 May 2017. “Commissioning in Federal Buildings.” Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, http://energy.gov/eere/ femp/commissioning-federal-buildings. Accessed 14 December 2016. deGroot, Rudolf, et al. “A typology for the description, classification and valuation of ecoysstem functions, goods and services.” Ecological Economics (2002) 41 (3): 393-408. Dorgan, C., R. Cox, and C. Dorgan. “The Value of the Commissioning Process: Costs and Benefits.” 2002 USGBC Greenbuild Conference. 2002. Ellis, Christopher, and Dylan Reilly. “Landscape Performance Report: U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters.” University of Maryland; Landscape Architecture Foundation. 2015. Elzeyadi, Ihab. “Daylighting-Bias and Biophilia: Quantifying the Impacts of Daylight on Occupants Health.” In: Thought and Leadership in Green Buildings Research. Greenbuild 2011 Proceedings. Washington, DC: USGBC Press. 2011. Foreman, Charles, and Chris Lowen. “Optimizing a Landmark.” High Performing Buildings (2015) Summer: 48-58. Friedman, Hannah, David Claridge, Cory Toole, Marti Frank, Kristin Heinemeier, Kim Crossman, Eliot Crowe, & Daniel Choinière. “Annex 47 Report 3: Commissioning Cost-Benefit and Persistence of Savings, A Report of Cost-Effective Commissioning of Existing and Low Energy Buildings Annex 47 of the International Energy Agency Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems Program.” International Energy Agency. 2010. Gómez-Baggerthun, Erik, and David N. Barton. “Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning.” Ecological Economics (2013) 86: 235-245. Gomez-Baggethun, Erik, Rudolf deGroot, et al. “The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes.” Ecological Economics (2010) 69: 1209- 1218. “GSA Development of St. Elizabeths Campus.” U.S. General Services Administration, n.d., http:// stelizabethsdevelopment.com/index.html. Accessed 12 January 2017. “GSA Properties.” U.S. General Services Administration, 2016, www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21099l. Accessed 14 June 2017. Habitat Working Group (see Appendix A). Group interview. 13 April 2017. Human Health and Well-Being Working Group (see Appendix A). Group interview. 14 April 2017. IBISWorld, NAICS 56173. “Landscaping Services in the US: Market Research Report.” IBISWorld. March 2017. Web. 19 May 2017. IBISWorld, NAICS 54132. “Landscape Design in the US: Market Research Report.” IBISWorld. March 2017. Web. 19 May 2017. Jenerette, G.D., W.L. Stefanov, et al. “Ecosystem services and urban heat riskscape moderation: water, green spaces, and social inequality in Pheonix, USA.” Ecological Applications (2011) 21 (7): 2637-2651. Kailey, Dan, Matt Burkholder, Mike Luffred, Charlie Rowland, and Mike Lloyd. “The Life-Cycle of Commissioning for New Construction: A Case Study at NGA Campus East.” Building Innovation Conference and Expo, Washington D.C. 2014. Kelly, Scott. Personal interview. 27 April 2017. King, Thomas. Personal interview. 2 May 2017. Kramer, Eric. “Landscape Commissioning: A New Model for Confirming and Maintaining Performance.” American Society of Landscape Architects 2013 Annual Meeting and Expo, Boston. 2013. “Landscape Performance Series: About Landscape Performance.” Landscape Architecture Foundation, n.d., https://landscapeperformance.org/about-landscape-performance. Accessed 5 May 2017.

91 Lottrup, Lene, Ulrika K. Stigsdotter, Henrik Meilby, & Anne Grete Claudi. “The Workplace Window View: A Determinant of Office Workers’ Work Ability and Job Satisfaction.” Landscape Research Journal (2015) 40,1: 57-75. Ma, Shan, Jennifer M. Duggan, Bradley A. Eichelberger, Brynn W. McNally, Jeffrey R. Foster, Eda Pepi, Marc N. Conte, Gretchen C. Daily, and Guy Ziv. “Valuation of ecosystem services to inform management of multiple-use landscapes.” Ecosystem Services (2016) 19: 6-18. Mandel, Lauren, and Emily McCoy. [GSA Site Commissioning White Paper Climate Working Group Survey, administered by Andropogon Associates] Unpublished raw data. 2017(a). Mandel, Lauren, and Emily McCoy. [GSA Site Commissioning White Paper Habitat Working Group Survey, administered by Andropogon Associates] Unpublished raw data. 2017(b). Mandel, Lauren, and Emily McCoy. [GSA Site Commissioning White Paper Human Health and Well-Being Working Group Survey, administered by Andropogon Associates] Unpublished raw data. 2017(c). Mandel, Lauren, and Emily McCoy. [GSA Site Commissioning White Paper Materials Working Group Survey, administered by Andropogon Associates] Unpublished raw data. 2017(d). Mandel, Lauren, and Emily McCoy. [GSA Site Commissioning White Paper Soil Working Group Survey, administered by Andropogon Associates] Unpublished raw data. 2017(e). Mandel, Lauren, and Emily McCoy. [GSA Site Commissioning White Paper Vegetation Working Group Survey, administered by Andropogon Associates] Unpublished raw data. 2017(f). Mandel, Lauren, and Emily McCoy. [GSA Site Commissioning White Paper Water Working Group Survey, administered by Andropogon Associates] Unpublished raw data. 2017(g). Maniktala, Ravi. Personal interview. 8 May 2017. “Mariposa Land Port of Entry.” GreenIdeas Building Science Consultants, www.egreenideas.com/portfolio/ mlpoe/. Accessed 20 June 2017. Materials Working Group (see Appendix A). Group interview. 14 April 2017. Materials Working Group (see Appendix A). Group interview. 18 April 2017. McCoy, Emily, and Lauren Mandel. “Layered Landscapes: Building Habitat & Managing Stormwater in a High- Use Urban Park.” Ecological Restoration (2017) Publication pending. McPherson, Greg, et al. “Municipal Forest Benefits and Costs in Five US Cities.” Journal of Forestry (2005) 103 (8): 411-416. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press: 2003. Mills, Evan. “Building commissioning: a golden opportunity for reducing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.” Energy Efficiency (2011) 4:145–173. Mills, Evan, Hannah Friedman, Tehesia Powell, Norman Bourassa, David Claridge, Tudi Haasl, & Mary Ann Piette. “The Cost-Effectiveness of Commercial-Buildings Commissioning, A Meta-Analysis of Energy and Non-Energy Impacts in Existing Buildings and New Construction in the United States.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2004. Nelson, N.L. “Avoiding Litigation through Proper Commissioning: My Experience as an Expert Witness.” Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Building Commissioning. 1999. “NGA Campus East.” Clark Construction, www.clarkconstruction.com/our-work/projects/nga-campus-east. Accessed 15 Dec. 2016. “Pete V. Domenici U.S. Courthouse–Arid Region Urban Landscape & Water Harvesting Retrofit.” Biohabitats, Inc, www.biohabitats.com/projects/pete-v-domenici-united-states-courthouse-arid-region-urban- landscape-water-harvesting-retrofit/. Accessed 15 Dec. 2016. Petri, Aaron C. et al. “How Green Are Trees?-Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods to Assess Net Environmental Benefits.” Journal of Environmental Horticulture (2016) 34 (4): 101-110. Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Establishing Commissioning Costs. 2002. Richards, Jennine. “Green Building: A Retrospective on the History of LEED Certification.” Institute for Environmental Entrepreneurship. 2012. Rios Clementi Hale Studios. “Pete V. Domenici U.S. Courthouse Sustainable Landscape Retrofit by Rios Clementi Hale Studios.” World Landscape Architect, http://worldlandscapearchitect.com/pete-v-domenici-u- s-courthouse-sustainable-landscape-retrofit-albuquerque-usa-rios-clementi-hale-studios/#. WFPsnVMrKpp. Accessed 15 Dec. 2016. Soil Working Group (see Appendix A). Group interview. 7 April 2017. 92 State of Arizona, State Procurement Office. Offer of Acceptance, Attachment I, General Qualifications: Commissioning Concepts, 2016, https://spo.az.gov/sites/default/files/Mechanical%20Concepts%20 dba%20Commissioning%20Concepts_1.pdf. Sustainable SITES Initiative. SITES v2 Rating System: For Sustainable Land Design and Development. 2014. biohabitats.com/projects/pete-v-domenici-united-states-courthouse-arid-region-urban-landscape- water-harvesting-retrofit/. Accessed 15 Dec. 2016. Terrapin Bright Green LLC. The Economics of Biophilia. 2012. www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/reports/the- economics-of-biophilia/. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London and Washington: 2010. The Clark. Clark Art Institute Earns LEED Gold Certification. Williamstown: The Clark Art Institute, 9 May 2016. Digital. The Sustainable SITES Initiative. 2017, www.sustainablesites.org. Accessed 10 January 2017. Turner, Cathy, and Mark Frankel. “Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings (Final Report).” New Buildings Institute, Vancouver 2008. Vegetation Working Group (see Appendix A). Group interview. 13 April 2017. Water Working Group (see Appendix A). Group interview. 13 April 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. Absences from work of employed full-time wage and salary. Washington, D.C. 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ecoregions. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/eco-research/ ecoregions. 2016. U.S. General Services Administration. FY 2015 Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) Open Data Set. Retrieved from www.gsa.gov/portal/content/102880. 2015. U.S. General Services Administration. PBS-P100: Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service. 2016. U.S. General Services Administration. The Building Commissioning Guide. 2005. U.S. General Services Administration. The benefits and challenges of green roofs on public and commercial buildings: A report of the United States General Services Administration. 2011.

93 Image credit: Bill Timmerman